All Forum Posts by: William Alston

Eric,
You are welcome

Bill

Eric,
In Firefox your layers are still bleeding over one another making the text a little hard to read. Not as bad as before though.

Bill

Rich Vogt,
On a deal we were negotiating for others
we recently had a lender's negotiator that was "married" to the BPO (100k above our cash offer)
We asked them to help us out by sharing the comps they had used because we couldn't find any that justified the BPO they were relying on.
We told him if he had data we would go back to the buyer and share the data.

They had none, they hemmed and hawwed for two more months and then came down from 340k to 275k and paid commission of 5% plus most of the closing costs.
Side bar-The house we were dealing on was 3bed 3 bath at 2200 sq ft. One month before close another home two doors down (under 1000 sq ft 2 bed/ 1 bath) SOLD and closed at 285K.

They are bluffing.
They don't know the markets and their data is not reliable even if they have any.
Hang in there ....

I find that each lender has good and bad negotiators and sometimes going over their heads is the only way to get anything done. Remember that every bank has a policy for such things even if they don't bother to tell you about it. I think most call it "escalating" so when you get a brick wall for a negotiator after 30 days of nothing in response ask for a supervisor.

No Name,
Start with a flow chart for each type of deal and see it through to the end on paper.
This helps to pinpoint the appropriate strategy and helps to remind you when a deal starts to go sideways. I'll bet many here use this technique even if they are only keeping the flow chart in their head.

Y'all,
If I remember this correctly from my few lucid days while in law school it is not possible under the law for one to make it impossible for a property to be sold.

Like I said above, the banks are knowingly breaking the law but we are not yet sufficiently organized to oppose them.
Information is the first step in the process.

The rules are too complicated for me to sort out but what my legal master mind group tells me is that the lenders are full of sh-- and they can make no such stipulation that is binding.

First, in a short sale they are not the owners so are not able to use any of the exceptions to the "prohibition against restraints on alienation" (this is legal mumbo jumbo for "I say you can't sell it after you buy it")
As a lender they may be able to provide funding under certain conditions but in a short sale they are not the lender either.

This does get more complicated when Fannie or Freddie or the short sale investor but the rules still apply.

Second, many investors mistakenly don't put this up front in their contracts, (I only just learned this technique myself from people I met on this website).
see below..

"If you are an investor state plainly in your purchase agreement that you intend to resell for a profit and then you squelch any issues about them not knowing about it which is the ONLY PART of flipping which can get you in trouble with the short sale lender.

There are many issues which come from lending guidelines about double escrows and flips without the first leg closing on its "own merits" meaning its own funding but these are entirely different from the short sale lender putting into an agreement that you can't resell.

This is another reason for us all to collaborate and share these stories.

And to share the emails/letters/approvals from lenders that violate so many laws it just boggles the mind.

Anyone who wants more info from blogs etc showing clear and convincing evidence of CW's criminal intent just PM me, there's too much to put here and as you can see this post is too long already

I have been collecting info on the banks many legal violations for my friends in my legal master mind that are envisioning a class action suit against the lenders (after the dust settles and they see who is left to sue)

I would like a copy of that "can not sell" stipulation for my pals if it is possible.

dmj4
Because each lender seems to have their own magic words there is no "one size fits all" formula that I am aware of.

However, what you want is clear unequivocal language that they will not pursue a deficiency and that this is a part of the short sale bargain that you have struck.

Also beware of the following which I picked up from one of our local "mills" that handles a lot of short sales.

When you get your settlement agreement keep it close to you until the statute of limitations has run on the lender's ability to pursue you.

(I now recommend to my clients that they put it with the birth certificates or their passports, somewhere safe and where they will remember where it is.)

The reason is that it has become known that lenders are holding their files for several months and then giving them off to collectors in bundles.
In the bundle there are files with recourse rights and some files without recourse rights.
They are not readily distinguishable and reports have come in of people being contacted by collectors even after they had received a settlement which waived recourse.
Shady yes...but does it work? Only if you haven't kept your settlement agreement handy.
One last tip from our panel of legal research experts who shall remain nameless...Even if you don't get clear language waiving your deficiency many times the settlement agreement shows that you owe $0 or a note in the amount of $0.
With this documentation you have at least some evidence to support the argument that in your negotiations you bargained for a waiver of deficiency and were explicitly told by the lender during negotiations or perhaps at close that this was the meaning of the $0 or the note in the amount of $0.
Good luck

Will,
You are right. The cases I have seen of DRE playing cops and robbers are few and far between and I never saw one end in a prosecution of any kind.

I have seen some pretty dumb things happen to people at local board hearings and the DRE and they were not prosecuted as you point out but they did have to spend time in depositions and hearings for standing too close to the grey line which is the advice I believe you and I are both offering here.

Its quite probable I've met more unlucky people than you have.

I believe we are both hoping that Sean here does not join the ranks of the unlucky.

George,
There's enough people taxing every deal as it is. Title and escrow will never go away, commissions are only there if somebody is in the deal before you and adds them, but the Loss Mitigation piece is a brand new thing and most people see it as a new expense with little or no added value thye just don't understand it maybe. I've met BS artists in every arena and they all have to pass the same smell test before getting my money or getting my recommend
As with real estate people, gurus or attorneys I use them if they add value in excess of their expense. Otherwise I am used to doing things myself. I like it that way and I only delegate when someone proves their ability to add value.

Sean,
Will makes a good point about the 25% you were told you could have from the realtor. Is it legal ?no. Does it happen frequently? yes.

Why not associate with better people who can do more with less hassle and not break the law.?

I see a lot of first timers asking questions on how to save a deal.
The best way to save some deals is to walk away and live to find another.

Take the long view and get a team put together, a team of skilled professionals so you can do this again and again.

Need help to assemble the team PM me. I can tell you how or do it for you. These people don't charge you a penny, neither do I.

The deals are out there and they will keep coming. Don't focus on just one especially if it is tainted and puts you anywhere near a dirty transaction.

This web site is public and you have just stated in a public forum something that is frowned upon by the DRE.

I disagree with Will on one point though, it is your problem here's why....
A very aggressive DRE person, not that I ever met one, could make the case that you may have performed an act which requires a license which is a violation. This is highly unlikely because the DRE is mostly a toothless one eyed watch dog that don't even bark.
But what if the agent gets in trouble and you spend hours in depositions being questioned as a witness. Its not worth it.

Do clean deals and do lots of them and you won't waste your time in court explaining things and you won't have to give the money back.