All Forum Posts by: Ryan Webber

Originally posted by Joshua Dorkin:

Enough.

There's ZERO reason for the bickering and personal stuff here. I'm only sorry that I wasn't aware of the nonsense in this thread earlier. The personal attacks need to stop.

Any more of the playground nonsense and we will start removing posts without warning.

Thanks.

Rats, busted by Dad again.

Originally posted by Bill Gulley:

As I recall, you were on another site pushing your "system" and I pointed out issues with it and you went balistic and ever since then you have attempted to discredit me. I suggest you knock it off. It makes you look like you forgot to take your meds.

You must have me confused with someone else. I have no system to push. I have never had any product or service to sell except houses (I make a living wholesaling). I have mentored many people but still have yet to receive a dime for it other than directly generating business. I may forget to take my meds daily, but I remember our conversations well.

Originally posted by Bill Gulley:

The easiest way to wholesale deal is to take an option and sell it and get out of the way, let the seller sell to the end buyer!

Well the District Attorney's Office of Indiana disagrees with that. They interpreted an option contract to be unlicensed brokerage, and prosecuted J.T. Radebaugh on that premise.

http://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/93/topics/56221-recent-assignment-contract-bust

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

Originally posted by Bill Gulley:

I don't believe I ever said they were illegal, just saying they may be hard to do or that title companies just won't allow it

I figured that much Bill which is why I responded on your behalf.

Lol, do either of you actually read my posts before you respond to them? I never said Bill said they are illegal. I SAID they are illegal in UTAH. Let me quote my own quote with added bolding for clarification. Maybe you will both read it this time.

Originally posted by Ryan Webber:

Well, Bill said they are not allowed, and I am saying dry funded double closings are statutorily illegal in at least Utah.

Here's Bill's actual statement with bolding added:

Originally posted by Bill Gulley:

While these double closing use to be common, I did many of them, they are now seen as a chain of title issue and are not allowed if the closing agent is aware of the issue.

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

Originally posted by Ryan Webber:

You are the only person I recall seeing trying to separate the terms simultaneous and double closings. I think some people repeat what you say, but you really just made it all up.

Not true, regardless of your recollection, however, who cares if I did make up the definitions.

I CARE. When you bust my chops because I don't bend to your whim in changing the definitions of double closings that you don't even do, I CARE. I'm glad you or some unnamed third party made something up and decided everyone else needs to follow you but I, for one, am not going to. And it seems like the vast majority of people on BP aren't either. As you said, everyone keeps on messing it up, too.

I think your method is too complicated. They are all double closings, some are wet funded and some are dry funded. That defines everything we need to define and still keeps it as simple as possible.

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

As to terminology, I am not the only one using those definitions.

You are the only person I recall seeing trying to separate the terms simultaneous and double closings. I think some people repeat what you say, but you really just made it all up.

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

Your idea that transactional founders are lobbying to get rid of simu (dry) closings is ridiculous. First, there is no association or consortium of transactional founders and if there were, they would not have enough pull to do that. The parties responsible for this are the title companies.

I wasn't actually proposing that an association of transactional lenders had an organization to lobby it or that there is some conspiracy. My point really was mostly venting. I had just come across a transactional lenders website where they were trying to scare people out of dry funding a double closing. Nonetheless many transactional lenders I know are hard money lenders also. And many hard money lenders have their mortgage broker's license now because of the SAFE Act and they would naturally be involved with some of the mortgage broker's organizations. If a transactional lender is involved with any type of lobbying organization they would naturally promote further extension of their product and services, which means no dry funding. Not to say that their influence means much.

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

No one is saying they can't be done or that they are illegal

Well, Bill said they are not allowed, and I am saying dry funded double closings are statutorily illegal in at least Utah.

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

most title companies in most areas will not insure the transactions which results in a no deal. This is why they often can not be done, not some sort of transactional funding conspiracy.

Its never been easy to find a title agent/company that would do them, and I would agree that it is not a transactional funding conspiracy. My frustration is that so many people just assume that they have to pay 1 or 2 points to a transactional lender if they are doing a double closing, which is not true. There is only one state that I know of that doesn't allow dry funded double closings (Utah), and only one where at least some of the counties make it nearly impossible (California). For everybody else, you probably can save your $1,000 or $2,000 that you would pay a lender and make some phone calls to find an investor friendly title agent.

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

You being the only one, if someone I was speaking to was confused, that can certainly ask me for more clarity or info.

I was confused so I wanted more clarity. Its a public forum, can I not ask you for clarification?

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

It is clear until you keep mixing it up. What you keep refering to is a simu close, not a double close. There are tons and tons of posts that confiuse the two and I have often cleared that up. A simultaneous close and a double closing with two stand alone closing transactions are two entirely different fruits.

Simultaneous and double closings are terms that were only recently differentiated, and really mostly by you, Will. There is no official difference. National title company policy, as referenced under ALTA, doesn't officially call them double OR simultaneous closings. I think the term they use is "back to back closings" or "double escrows", and they don't separate those by their funding type.

And really the biggest pushers (outside of you, Will) I've seen for the whole dry funding terminology AND scare tactics are transactional funders. I wouldn't be surprised if they were lobbying for laws to prohibit dry funded back to back closings (which I understand YOU call simultaneous closings). Transactional funding can be very lucrative, and eliminating dry funded transactions would increase their business dramatically. Most people on BP think dry funding isn't even possible anymore so they think they ALWAYS have to use a transactional funder on a double escrow closing. And for some states that is true, BUT for most states it is total BS.

Either way, I'm going to continue to call them all "double closings", whether they are wet, dry, or scrambled.

Well I think I might call them all "simultaneous closings" sometimes, too.

And I'm probably going to pepper that with some "double escrows" and a couple "back to back's". I like a little variety.

Originally posted by Will Baranard:

There are many ways to come to the table with $0 of your own money and even none of leveraged money, that does not mean they are all the best formats either.

I completely agree with you on that.

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

If that is what it will take to get you off my back, I am game, let me know when and where.

I'm not the type to get off your back. If someone slips up giving advice on a public forum, I will be there on their back. Always have, always will. Its nothing personal, Will. You just happen to be someone who gives a lot of advice on a public forum. You're a great help to many people, and I'll give you credit for that, but I will still be the first to call you out, or anyone for that matter, when I think you are wrong. That's what makes this place what it is.

Either way, there's only one person on this forum that I've been tempted to rumble with in person, and its not you, Will. Sorry, you win without a fight.

Originally posted by Bill Gulley:

While these double closing use to be common, I did many of them, they are now seen as a chain of title issue and are not allowed if the closing agent is aware of the issue.

Bill Gulley, we've had this same exact conversation many times. Let me tell you how it will go. I ask you why you think that, you respond something about the American Land Title Association (ALTA) and some attorneys/title agents told you so, I quote ALTA's policy to you where it says that you CAN do double closings, you dance around and reference some attorney or title agent told you so, I ask who specifically told you that, and you never give me a straight answer.

Please, Bill, tell me who exactly told you that and what city and company they work for, and I will personally call them and discuss the issue with them directly. I will then report back here on BP what was said. If you aren't willing to let your sources be verified independently, then I think you should stop repeating it. If I am wrong then I will admit it here publicly, but I think you made this up in your head. I'm assuming that you keep forgetting that I've called you out multiple times about it and you will never give up your sources for these supposed truths.

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

Here we go again Ryan. Just for the record for the 15th or so time, I clarified many times that I was refering to CA and referenced that so many times, so try reading again and get off my case.

Well I for one was confused because you were telling that to Matthew, who is in New Mexico. So informing someone in New Mexico they can't do something, but not specifically mentioning that its only in California that you can't do it, seems pretty confusing to me.

Just trying to make sure that everyone understands this double closing thing clearly. I had serious concerns with your information being misunderstood. To me, giving sound advice that is relevant to that particular person's geographic location is the best way to give real help. Creating unneeded confusion about the geographic limitations of your advice is more of a hindrance than a help.

I have the right tree, and I never really noticed your bite, Will. Maybe when you come down from that tree you can show me how bad your bite really is.

:)

Alright I haven't been back to this post in awhile but I have to clarify a couple things.

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

@Matt - The quote you posted was not written by me, so I am not sure why my name appears in the quote, however, to answer your question, you don't double close without using your money or that of a lender's which cuts into your profit margins.

Will Barnard, the quote referenced by Matt comes from your first post on the second page. It was a long post but here's the paragraph it came from with the quote bolded.

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

As for which is better, double close or assign (or in the cases where assigning is not possible, using another startegy such as a land trust or entity), there are positives and negatives on each side and each investor must weigh them. For double closings, you have more fees (escrow, title, transfer taxes (where applicable), recording fees, etc, plus you must come to the table with your own cash to close or use transactional funding which then costs you even more. All these costs cut into what you could have made in your wholesale fee. The benefit is to conceal, at least initially, and perhaps in some cases/states/scenarios, always, your fee. Seems like a high price to pay to me just to conceal your fee. In my OPINION, I would rather get a higher fee, leave more spread for the investor and inform them that if they have issue with how much I make, they can always remove themselves from my buyers list and I will sell to another. Again, that's just me and how I feel.

And now on to the other part of your post.

Originally posted by Will Barnard:

To wholesale without any of your own money or that of a lender/transactional funder, you must not double close, but use other creative strategies like entities and trusts.

Since we've had this argument at least 3 or 4 times, Will, maybe you should be more clear that this is only true for California. I double closed a property on Monday, 7/2/2012, without using my own money or that of lender/transactional funder. I brought $0 to closing. I used my buyer's funds to fund the transaction with the seller.

Double closings with dry funds (as you put it) are still being done.

Originally posted by Troy Michaels:

1. what paperwork does the title company get? the original purchase contract and the assignment contract between the wholesaler and the end buyer?

Yes, the contract and the assignment go to the title agent, or if its a double closing then both contracts

The amount of the assignment fee is specifically referenced in the assignment. That's the amount they give you. If you are double closing then the title company would give the difference, and, yes, IF they regularly do double closings they would know that.

On an assignment, no. There is typically no paperwork for you to sign. For a double closing, yes, you have to sign two sets of HUD-1's and other documents.

Who pays for the title insurance policy (a title check is normally not sufficient) and for other closing costs is specifically outlined in the contract. If the contract says the seller pays for it, or you pay for it, or the end buyer pays for it, then that party pays for it.