All Forum Posts by: Mike Hartzog

Congrats!

@Mike Garland

As long as you have a photocopy of the note, you can still make it work. The seller must provide an executed and notarized Affidavit of Lost Note. That document, in combination with the photocopy, is acceptable as a substitute for the original note. As Kimberly said, the DOT is recorded so no real worry there.

I agree with Dave, Chris, and Patrick.  The recommendation I would add is to board with a servicer like FCI or Madison on a No Collection (Client Managed) servicing plan.  You don't need the servicer involved in managing your foreclosure.  Engage a foreclosure attorney directly to get the foreclosure done. 

While it's not common, ownership can be conveyed without clearing title (removing the liens). That's what "subject-to" real estate transactions are all about, i.e., ownership changes but the loan remains secured by the property.  I would start by talking to the seller.  If they have reason to believe the lien is still good, get a title report and see if the lien is still on title, and look at the manner in which the property was conveyed.

There is no problem holding notes secured by collateral properties in different states in a single business entity (LLC). The income you receive is taxed based on the location of your business entity, not the location of the collateral properties securing the notes.

@Jeremy Motte  I responded on the linked topic.

I suggest you call the county tax office and get the correct info directly.  O&E reports and even county sites don't always have correct info. These sources can be ok for preliminary DD but there is no substitute for calling the county directly before pulling the trigger on an investment.

You should get a title report (O&E) and a BPO to establish value.  You don't need to get these from FCI.  http://ProTitleUSA does a good job on title reports.  Valuation Vision and others can do BPOs.  Here's a blog post that may help you get through the title report:

Due Diligence for Notes - Tax and Title

The fine is sounding pretty good by comparison ;-)

@Bill R. I agree with your comments and understand the logic and intention of the rules.  I think the current rules could be improved though.  If I make over 200K/year or have more than 1M assets I must be smart enough to understand the risks I am taking with my capital.  If I make 150K, I am not so smart and the SEC is going to protect me by not allowing my to invest in funds.  I can, however, indulge in other investment pursuits which are "safe" for someone of limited intelligence and means such as myself.  Things like the stock market, the casino, and the state lottery are all open to me.

IMO the 200K income bar is too high.  There are too many people making less who need access better investment vehicles for retirement.  Rule 506(b) really helps for those fund managers who want to be more inclusive of folks with lower incomes, but it doesn't go far enough IMO.