All Forum Posts by: Kyle J.

@Chase Burkett You don’t have to pay taxes on the proceeds from a cash-out refi. It’s not considered income. It’s a loan that you have to pay back. 

(Congrats on your new appraisal and equity position by the way.)

@Sushi Diebold Smart of you to be thinking about this in advance. Take a look at this thread (specifically the response in it from Jeff) for an excellent list of questions to ask any potential hard/private money lender:

Private Money Lender - How to Qualify the Lender?

@James Lubin Since you’re the new owner, and they’re just month-to-month tenants as you originally said, then you can change the terms of their tenancy - to include no longer allowing dogs. You just need to give them proper notice (generally 30 days).

The previous rental agreement was with the previous owner, and you’re allowed to change it (since they’re MTM tenants). They can then decide to accept the changes and stay (thereby continuing the tenancy under those new terms), or give you notice and move out. 

@Jason Mak  Coincidentally, about an hour after my previous post discussing the two new bills that have been proposed in California to extend the tenant eviction protections afforded under AB3088, I got an email from the California Apartment Association (CAA) saying that they now believe the Legislature passing an extension is "inevitable".  In fact, it appears they're no longer even trying to advocate to prevent it, they're merely trying to negotiate what it will include. 

According to the email, CAA’s advocacy team has demanded that an extension of AB 3088 include:

(1) dollars to reimburse rental property owners for unpaid rent;
(2) a provision that tenants who can pay be forced to do so;
(3) a provision that enables an owner to evict problem and nuisance residents; and
(4) a prohibition on local governments adopting different local laws (preemption).

Here's some more information directly from the email if you're interested:

VoterVoice: COVID Relief Bill Should Protect Landlords Too

That’s unfortunate, but not completely surprising. Even when laws are clear, sometimes there’s a disparity in how they’re interpreted and/or applied. 

I haven’t had to file against any of my tenants. Thankfully they’ve all been continuing to pay their rent on time. 

I assume you meant to ask whether those of us WITHOUT federally backed mortgages would be clear to file unlawful detainers after 1/31/21.  In any event, there's lots of things to look at and consider.

First, as I understand it, Biden only requested a couple things.  He requested that federal housing agencies extend eviction protections for those tenants living in properties with federally-backed mortgages.  He also requested that the CDC extend the federal eviction moratorium (which is not just limited to those living in properties with federally-backed mortgages), which is currently set to expire Jan 31st.  He would like both of these to be extended until March 31st.  However, as of the writing of this post, I don't believe either have been extended to that date (though I'm guessing it's likely they will be).

Here's a couple articles with more info on that part of it if you're interested:

Biden Signs Executive Order to Extend Eviction Moratorium. Is More Rent Relief Next?

Biden seeks to extend bans on evictions and foreclosures

With all that being said, what's more relevant to your question in my mind is what's going on in our state since AB3088 provides the primary eviction protections to tenants here.  As you may know, the eviction protections outlined in this law are due to expire at the end of this month.  However, two new bills have already been proposed (one to extend them through March and the other that would extend them all the way into 2022).  And our Gov. Newsom has already indicated he wants one of them and will sign it:

Newsom to Legislature: Don’t let state’s eviction protections lapse

So, to me, it's too soon to tell what landlords will be able to do after January 31st.  Yes, the current protections end after that date.  (Of course, for those who aren't receiving any rent at all or who have tenants who are violating other terms of the lease, AB3088 already allows the filing of Unlawful Detainers. You don't have to wait until after Jan 31st.)

Lastly, numerous attorneys have formed the opinion that these federal eviction moratoriums (like the CDC order) don't even apply in California.  For example, here's the opinion from the legal department at the leading landlord association in California (CAA):

Like I said, lots of things at play here, and these are just some of my own observations/opinions.  As always, I suggest consulting your own landlord-tenant attorney for actual/specific legal advice.   

Never heard of them, but you are right to be suspicious. A loan origination fee paid prior to your loan even being approved is a red flag, and something often seen with scammers.

Not to mention that real private lenders are simply not out there randomly approaching strangers on the internet and begging to loan them money at 100% financing and 6% interest, especially when they haven’t even seen the details of the deal yet. That’s just not realistic, or how it really works. 

@Katie Jewell  Personally, if it were me, I wouldn't make her problem into my problem.   Since she's apparently having trouble on two separate sites, I'm guessing the issue is on her end.  So let her be the one to call and figure out what the issue is with HER debit card.  You don't even know if she actually qualifies yet.  

Use a money order.  That way you'd also have a record of the payment.  

In the future, you should consider getting a PO Box and/or a separate business bank account with a PO Box if you're that worried about your tenants having your home address.  You will inevitably end up having a need to write checks again (i.e. security deposit refunds at tenant move-outs).  Might as well plan for the future now. 

@Anthony Surach  Any good listing agent is going to attempt to confirm you're a qualified buyer who is capable of closing by asking for either: #1 - Proof of funds (if you say you're a cash buyer), or #2 - A copy of your pre-approval letter (if you're attempting to buy with a loan/financing contingency).  Reason being, they don't want to tie up their client's property with a potential buyer who can't actually close.

Proof of funds is nothing more than a bank statement with your name (the buyer) on it showing you have all of the available funds necessary for the purchase.  It really doesn't even have to be as formal as a bank statement.  I've used a screenshot from my bank's website just showing the total balance and my name.  You just need to be able to assure the listing agent that you have the ability to close.

There are websites out there that will allow you to print out fake POF so you can "fool" listing agents into thinking you have the money. I'm guessing many agents are onto these sites, but perhaps some are not. But do you really want to start off your real estate investing with trickery?

Bottom line, if you don't have the funds, you won't be able to provide proof of them.  It's as simple as that.  

I would also suggest you NOT start off trying to wholesale properties listed on the MLS. They do not make good wholesale properties. Why would they? They're available to literally EVERYONE. What value are you bringing to people by offering them a property that's already listed?

If you really want to try wholesaling, focus on off-market properties. You likely won't even be asked for POF. Plus, if you actually do end up getting a property under contract, you'll actually have something of value to offer to your buyers.

Just my two cents.