All Forum Posts by: Steve Babiak

Everything from the post by @Bob Reinhard that mentions “72 PS” is irrelevant to this particular purchase - properties sold under “72 PS” are sold by the county Tax Claim Bureau, not by the sheriff. The stuff he mentions from “53 PS” is pertinent - properties sold under “53 PS” are sold by the sheriff.

There is a nine month redemption period that starts from the date the sheriff’s deed is recorded. That particular redemption period is only available to owners where all the statutory requirements are met. There is another “loophole” redemption period - this is from a court ruling regarding when an owner can redeem even when they do not meet the statutory requirements for the nine month redemption period.

As to purchasing title insurance for a property purchased at sheriff sale, some people say to do so, others say don’t bother. When you get the sheriff’s proposed distribution of funds, there will be a copy of a title search that was performed by a title company selected by the sheriff; that title company is possibly the best place to go to ask whether you should buy a title policy - they did the search and should be willing to insure. But keep in mind they sell title insurance so they might only encourage that you buy a policy. If everything you are worried about is an exception or an exclusion on a title policy, then your title insurance isn’t going to ease your worries.

You mentioned this is a flip. The resale of this property won’t get title insurance from most (if not all) title insurers until 12 months from the date of the sheriff sale; they assume three months to record the sheriff’s deed. Although this is technically inaccurate (I saw a case where a sheriff sale of this sort was challenged and the challenge lawsuit took 11 months, deed recording came after that), that is the typical practical waiting period to get the title insurance for the resale.

Whatever the mortgage balance, that’s now your obligation to get paid off; before even bidding on any sheriff sale property you should have a good idea of any remaining mortgage balance(s). Bob’s earlier post had given the most reasonable way to estimate.

 In 2019, I bought a house where the seller had to bring almost $60K to closing ;)

Lets keep this thread going! 

Personal opinion, ive never liked dual-agency. When a listing agent also represents the buyer, the fiduciary duty to both parties gets removed, and instead turns into a duty to oneself (as the agent) to make the most amount of money possible. One cannot simultaneously get the highest price for the seller and the lowest price for the buyer in the same transaction. 

As a mortgage broker in these types of transactions, or buyers going at it without an agent, puts a lot on our shoulders to answer questions that would typically be referred to their buyer's agent. I'm also concerned with the liability here. Yes, i'm licensed, but i don't work as an agent in any capacity; there's no experience on my end other than a piece of paper that says i'm allowed. this is a disservice to a buyer as well, may of whom are first timers and could benefit from all the support they can get. 

I also don't love that in a market where buyers are already having affordability issues, especially where i am (Orange County, CA) where most 30-somethings are already struggling to piece together a minimum down, they will likely be slapped with an additional cost in paying their own agent. even at 2%, on an entry level $1m home, that's an extra $20k most don't have.

IMO, this just made our affordability situation worse. and i don't see it reducing home prices, i see it benefitting the seller to pocket that extra 3%-ish at a time of record equity building over the last few years. 

Not sure what the aim was with this NAR settlement. only thing i could think of is slowing down demand further to meet the supply (or lack thereof)?