All Forum Posts by: Tom Gimer

@Mike Boss You've got it right. The last remaining survivor in a joint tenancy takes 100%. A wife would not "inherit" because the joint tenancy interest does not go through probate. This is a general rule.

If you want your heirs to take your interest, you title as t/c. If you want the survivor to take outside of probate, you title as j/t.

To change from a j/t to t/c you would have all joint owners execute a new deed to those same owners as tenants in common. If you wanted the share to be other than 1/2 or 1/3 1/3 1/3 or 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 etc. (the default for 2, 3 and 4 tenants and so on) you would include the shares or percentages in the grant.

@Kevin Coleman The first thing you need to do is figure out if the ground rent is registered. You can do that by pulling the SDAT real property record and click on the View Ground Rent Registration link. If the ground rent isn't registered, the annual rent, etc. cannot be collected or enforced and there's no point even worrying about it.

If the ground rent is registered, you can determine the exact amount to redeem it -- it's a simple calculation based upon the date of the original lease and the annual rent. Just add deed prep and transfer taxes.

I would not avoid properties just because of the ground rent element.

@Brian Dvorak Yes as to title company. No as to bank -- you are the bank now. Using an attorney to prep docs and close is always smart. There is no need to change title before closing... trust would be the lender.

https://www.calculator.net/amortization-calculator.html?cloa...

Note should include a provision similar to the following:

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I, [Borrower name] (hereinafter known as “Borrower”), promise to pay to the order of [Trustee/trust, payment address] (hereinafter known as “Lender”) the sum of Fifty-Two Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($52,000.00), with interest from the date hereof until paid at the rate of Six percent (6%) per annum on the unpaid balance, payable as follows: Commencing on April 1, 2024, and continuing on the 1st day of each and every month thereafter principal and interest payments of $577.31, with the entire remaining unpaid balance of principal and interest, if not sooner paid, being due and payable in full on or before March 1, 2034 (the "maturity date").

Record a first priority security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust).

A sternly worded letter from an attorney advising that the buyer intends to pursue all available remedies (including recovering all costs and expense incurred in enforcing the contract, if it provides for that) tends to help most sellers understand the reality of what they agreed to.

If the contract isn’t bulletproof this is when the buyer makes that unfortunate discovery.

Actually, no... here is the website for the "insurance company" -- https://equityassurance.us/

lol

Search the archives… this is accurate. 

In some states the buyer has the right to choose the title company/settlement agent. However when you are the assignee of a contract (per the fact pattern), you are not the buyer... you're simply the assignee. If the assignee doesn't close, the original buyer is still on the hook. 

Assignees who come in late and insist on closing with "my title company" sometimes get their way when the wholesaler is weak and inexperienced... but they should also expect to pay for all of the work undertaken, and all expenses incurred, by the first title company.

CFD MLO — neither prevent attachment when the seller has issues.

@Jay HinrichsIf a law is passed that has the effect of reforming existing contracts, there is a fairly detailed analysis/framework for determining whether it would be constitutional under the contracts clause. Recently this came up in the context of COVID rent moratoriums, obviously a major public issue.

I just don't see it happening in the context of subto. What would be the "significant and legitimate public purpose" for the government getting involved in what seems to be a tiny percentage of transactions in an already heavily-regulated industry? And if there is a significant public purpose (doubtful) what would the new law do, require an immediate foreclosure? No chance. Criminalize a financial decision? Nope. It's just not going to happen, IMO.

First @Account Closed there are approximately zero good reasons for a seller to be looking for ways to sell subto. It’s just not smart.

Second, with an FHA loan, any title company that handles the subto transaction is ignorant of the regulations/published guidance which forbid it. So you'd be doing business, on a dangerous transaction, with fools.

On a long-listed property not only can this work but the agent/broker may agree to contribute (or discount) some commission to make it work. A reduced commission late in the game is better than no commission from an expired listing.