Also, homeowners in default vacate their houses for any reason they see fit...mostly because they are done caring about the property...they have to leave anyways, why not move on with their life before they bank evicts them.It is also no concern of the investor why the homeowner chooses to move out.If you can swing it timing wise it is a good deal for several reasons...the house doesn't sit vacant....you have somebody living in it that knows the deal (you disclose to them exactly what is happening and charge them a monthly rent below market value)...they can show the house for you if need be...the utilities get paid...and the investor can make some positive cash flow while negotiating...let's stop pretending this is hurting anybody...and most of all...dont make me think for a second we are concerned about the lender losing money because the investor is profiting....its the homeowner in default on the hook and nobody else.

I know patience is key here as well... we'll see how this goes. thanks again for the extremely valuable response.

Its in an area which is extremely desirable for renters and buyers.

I am concerned because I have been told that the bank won't allow it even if the contract is signed.

:roll: I have to say that I’m have not been concerned about how much more prices will drop in order to do deals.

Some areas are extremely difficult to sell retail because of competition from REO properties.

The one thing that potentially concerned me in your plan.

Well, then you are probably upside down on all of them.If you are concerned about your FICO, anything less than a full 100% payoff or keeping the payments current until the market turns around is going to hurt.Many will debate the degree of the pain but at this point, there is not much point to it.

So, as far as I'm concerned (and in my lease) they would owe me for October.

Then, he'll just need to follow the laws in California concerning evictions.Can he collect money from them for lost rent and utilities?