Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here
Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties. Try BiggerPockets PRO.
x
All Forum Categories
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

All Forum Posts by: Traci Lovelace

Traci Lovelace has started 12 posts and replied 73 times.

Post: Huge hairy mess

Traci LovelacePosted
  • Investor
  • Tampa, FL
  • Posts 73
  • Votes 12
Wanted to add to this:  The listing also states:  Parking:  Driveway spc.  The driveway is entirely located on the other lot.

Post: Huge hairy mess

Traci LovelacePosted
  • Investor
  • Tampa, FL
  • Posts 73
  • Votes 12
Originally posted by @Greg H.:

@Jay Hinrichs

I had to look up what an Alta policy was as I have never heard of it being used or suggested .

The more I thought about this last night( I enjoy real estate problem solving and the lack of problem solving skills being taught to our youth is going to hurt future generations ! Rant over lol) I am not sure any mistake was made at all and this is a situation where things were done correctly and it is an unfortunate that the OP has to deal with this

I think that you are probably correct about how this happened.  Its likely that the foreclosure was done correctly.  The second lot was never combined with the first into a single parcel - this much is clear. 

I do have one thing I'm puzzling over.  The listing indicates there is a deck.  The listing photos show the house with the deck, and photos of the water taken from the deck.  It seems like we should have some recourse for such a substantial misrepresentation.

Post: Huge hairy mess

Traci LovelacePosted
  • Investor
  • Tampa, FL
  • Posts 73
  • Votes 12
Originally posted by @Greg H.:
Originally posted by @Traci Lovelace:

They are the current owner of the property in question.  You can try to buy it from them for the back taxes plus some $$$ to them for their time

Post: Huge hairy mess

Traci LovelacePosted
  • Investor
  • Tampa, FL
  • Posts 73
  • Votes 12
Originally posted by @Leigh C:

Can someone find me a link to their official records.    I'll follow the path of mortgages and deeds but finding the website to do it on seems difficult at best.    

Contacting the owner without knowing if they can help is rather silly.   

 The records are not on line, Leigh.  I wish they were.  But I am pretty sure my title agent is pulling all of that together right now.

Post: Huge hairy mess

Traci LovelacePosted
  • Investor
  • Tampa, FL
  • Posts 73
  • Votes 12
Originally posted by @Leigh C:

@Traci Lovelacewhat county is this in?     I'll do a title search for you but I'm not sure where to find the official records

It's the city of Portsmouth VA. Thank you. Miraculously, I've located the former owner. According to our state's tax sale laws, she can pay the back taxes and fees and rescue it from the foreclosure/tax sale deal. Hopefully she will help me.

Post: Huge hairy mess

Traci LovelacePosted
  • Investor
  • Tampa, FL
  • Posts 73
  • Votes 12
Originally posted by @Leigh C:

@Traci Lovelace

Umm...don't go by that.    Go by the actual recorded documents.     

 If you are referring to the transfer stats, I'm not.  Our title agent has the recorded documents.

Post: Huge hairy mess

Traci LovelacePosted
  • Investor
  • Tampa, FL
  • Posts 73
  • Votes 12
Originally posted by @Sarah Ziehr:

The bank didn't know or missed it in the sheer # of transactions they are handling. 

I am sorry you are going through this but hopefully the attorney handling the foreclosure will be reasonable in reaching an agreement with you. It doesn't sound like anyone is really going to want to purchase the lot if they were meant to go together. 

When I am working on the buy side I always look up the address on the assessors website. You will see right away if there are multiple pins. 

Good luck! 

 Thank you, Sarah.  I'm a little sick to my stomach at the moment.  And why do these things always come up on Friday afternoon so you can't resolve them all weekend long?

Post: Huge hairy mess

Traci LovelacePosted
  • Investor
  • Tampa, FL
  • Posts 73
  • Votes 12
Originally posted by @Ned Carey:
Originally posted by @Traci Lovelace:

 The contract does not list the map parcel, it lists the meets and bounds description.

Does the meets and bounds description include what you thought you were buying?

I have to correct myself. The ratified contract does not have any legal description whatsoever. It references a HUD case number. My title agent says that HUD does it this way because they assume the foreclosure was done correctly.

Post: Huge hairy mess

Traci LovelacePosted
  • Investor
  • Tampa, FL
  • Posts 73
  • Votes 12
Originally posted by @Greg H.:

Unfortunately the county cannot just offer the property to you but has to have an open auction

I am trying to understand how the parcels are separate and not on one deed ? The person that was foreclosed on had to have had a survey(FHA requirement) and the mortgage company would have wanted the security for the loan to all be on the same deed. Unless the other lot was purchased later and not part of the original purchase with FHA ? When the bank foreclosed, they surely would have used the metes and bounds legal description that was used in the purchase

Greg - If you look at the two attachments, you will see the paper trail. The properties were bought and sold together a few times, but the transfer of parcel 0490 from the ex husband and ex wife to the same man with a new wife was recorded 07/03/2002. The last transfer of parcel 0500 was a quit claim deed between an ex husband and wife, and the same man and his new wife. That is dated 3/5/2012. So it seems like it was an afterthought that the lot 0500 didn't get included in the original transfer with the new wife. There is no corresponding real estate transaction for the parcel 0490, which is the one we bought. There is also no corresponding transfer of 0500 to Bank of America nor HUD. The lot 0500 may not have ever been mortgaged with Bank of America. It could have been owned outright.

Post: Huge hairy mess

Traci LovelacePosted
  • Investor
  • Tampa, FL
  • Posts 73
  • Votes 12
Originally posted by @Mike H.:

I guess the one question I'd have is how the bank could have listed and sold that property without disclosing the fact that the driveway and other reasonably believed parts of the property were not included in the sale.

Mike H - that's a great question. Not only did they NOT disclose that, they made reference to the deck (which is on the other lot) as something that they considered structurally unsound and needing to be removed. I think that even HUD was under the impression that it was one lot.