All Forum Posts by: Account Closed

If your buyers love the house and can qualify now to refinance it, do it.

But, if not, you can play hardball with the former seller who is now calling Countrywide to complain.

You could call them and ask them what their chances of buying would be with a foreclosure on their record? Especially one triggered by their breech of a contract.

You could remind them it would be far less traumatic for you to make your current buyers whole than it would be for them to have a foreclosure permanently attached to every mortgage application they fill out from now on.

I would also recommend you contact an attorney who is familiar with area of the law because you mentioned you have made the last 12 payments on the loan to CW. It is possible they have abandoned their ability to call the loan due to their inaction in calling it when they knew, or should have known, the title had changed hands. That is unless you played some land trust games, then it could be trickier.

However, if they have constructively abandoned their right to foreclose, it is my understanding, they could still go after the former seller who breeched the contract.

Anyway, the path of least resistance is usually better so if your buyer can refinance, do it and just move on.

Also, in the future, include verbiage in your contracts when you buy to allow you to seek recovery from the seller when they do something like this later. It stops them cold in their tracks when you point it out to them.

Isn't it amazing how the liberal left are always trumpeting the "will of the people" until the results are not to their liking?

Maybe we should be protesting the election of Obama or the magical votes now appearing in the MN Senate race.

BTW, this whole mess exists because government stuck its nose into the issue of marriage so they could tax it through licenses and then give tax benefits in the interest of promoting "family".

This is all just so silly. Marriage is a religious covenant, government should get their nose out of it all the way around.

Now, the issue of whether the government should "recognize" any kind of union is a whole different question.

Having said all of that, I have a question to those who oppose gay "marriage" ... What does it take away from you if they are allowed to marry?

Now, to those supporting it ... Other than the "feel good" position of having society recognize your "marriage" what does this do for you?

The reality is all of the issues raised in favor of "gay marriage", save two, are easily addressed through contract law and good estate planning. The two that aren't addressed that way are related to the emotional aspect of calling a union a "marriage" and taxation related to a marriage.

On the taxation side, the biggest one is in estate taxation and inheritance. Get the government out of the redistribution of wealth upon death, and the taxation issues go away.

Originally posted by **********:

Um, I bet there are more than a few recently who would call me a Nut case AND moron, because I actually voted for Obama,

Actually, I would call you neither. Obama has a great marketing engine. Some are especially susceptible to marketing messages even when they don't match reality.


Uh, check your math. He didn't get anywhere NEAR 60% of the votes cast.

Originally posted by Matthew Gil:

Savers are losers.

Am I the only one seeing that we are returning to a 1970's style economy in which the rich are heavily taxed, entrepreneurs stifled and bums are rewarded?

Nope, lots of us are talking about how this is 1976 all over again.

The Obama effect is real.

Investors who have large untapped capital gains are taking steps to realize those gains this year because they are convinced the cap gains rate is going to double next year. It is happening with stocks and real estate more than in other areas.

Investors are really worried they are going to punished for having been responsible for so long.

Bailouts for homeowners in default.

Bailouts for those in trouble with their credit cards.

Congressional hearings discussing seizure or tax of retirement plans.

That is just the short list.

Since the election the number one search term for new readers coming to my blog is some variation on worries over retirement plan seizure or taxation.

The Obama effect is real and widespread and when key members of his transition team talk about him ruling when he takes office instead of governing, the effect intensifies.

Anyone familiar with marketing knows perception is reality and the perception that the productive members of our society are about to punished for being responsible citizens is growing. Consequently, the smart ones are taking steps to get out of the way.

Originally posted by Matthew Gil:

Flipper, you paint with a wide brush stroke. I believe the likes of Mike, Tim and I are the on the record as stating that Bush is a disappointment and did not handle the economy well.

A bad President is a bad President, whether Republican or Democrat.

Yep, I have said many times W turned out to be a disappointment. I have often said it would've been nice to have had a real Republican in the White House over the last eight years.

But, I voted for him twice because he was still better than the alternatives. Can you imagine what our response in 2001 would've been from President Gore? He would've wanted the US to pay some kind of tax or penalty for the carbon emissions from the 9/11 attacks.

Originally posted by MikeOH:

You're right about that. Our entire form of government is at stake. We're living in interesting times and may actually be witnessing the destruction of a country.

I doubt it is that dire. There is still a rule of law and unless he wins re-election in 2012 his term and any authority will end at 12:01 PM on January 20, 2013 at the very latest.

What is interesting is to see the higher level of maturity and class the Bush administration has over what we witnessed when the Clintons were leaving town. I doubt there will be keyboards with missing "O" keys.

Originally posted by Mark Yuschak:

In an ideal situation, I want all my properties to be in their own LLC. It's the best way to achieve maximum protection, in my opinion.

I used to subscribe to that theory but after almost 25 years of real world experience I don't do that any more. I segregate properties based on common sense and location. There is a lot of overhead when you have a large number of properties. You must maintain a separate set of books for each entity. Each has its own checkbooks and tax returns. There are yearly fees required for each. And on and on.
"Going forward" this is getting harder and harder unless you have a demonstrable record in the business.



Be very careful because having an entity does not guarantee the liability protection in all cases. If the veil can be pierced all protection goes right out the window.

One of the ways the veil is routinely pierced is under capitalization. In other words, not enough assets or insurance to cover foreseeable risks.

Talk to your lawyer, accountant and insurance agent about what the normal and customary coverages for your area are and then carry at least that amount of liability coverage.

I agree with MikeOH, there is some really bad information in this thread. Get professional advice so you know what your risks really are.

Originally posted by Troy Mockridge:

And by the way, if you mainly go out and get private funding through networking and referrals you don't have to worry much about SEC stuff. And, just have your escrow company or attorney draft the mortgage, note, etc. for you. It's way cheaper and easier that way, trust me.

There are several states that REQUIRE you to file with them BEFORE the first private money transaction takes place in their state. No matter the amount, no matter how well you "know" your network. If they aren't family or "very close family friends" registration is required.

Be very careful, there is a lot of really bad information out there relating to registration requirements. Unfortunately, about the only time you will know you did it wrong is when you get served with the papers from one of the regulatory agencies covering this area. At that point, it will turn into a very expensive learning experience.

I agree, Mark. I like transparency in every transaction. If you have to try to hide it, you probably shouldn't be doing it.