Posted by JT - IN on August 13, 2001 at 03:30:54:
Ed:
This is the very reason that I have (several times), asked Kent ot clarify the womans situation. I doubt if really knows, other than what she may be telling him; and it must be what he wants to believe as well.
I think we will never know, and we can all live with that one too !!!
JT - IN
$500 to the person who successfully helps me - Posted by Kent Sayre
Posted by Kent Sayre on August 11, 2001 at 22:36:57:
I will pay $500 to whomever helps me successfully structure my deal.
Here is my situation.
I have a home seller who “owns” a home free and clear yet it’s not in her name because she wanted to protect herself against her ex-husband coming after the equity. Her sister and niece are on the title to the property.
The “owner” is motivated to leave town because she hates her family and has agreed to sell the property to my partner and I for $91,000. The true market value of this house is $129,000 and my partner and I plan to immediately put it back on the market for $119,000 after we are in title. We’ll make some quick cash and not have to touch the house since it’s in great condition.
The catch is that the sister and niece will not sign the deed conveying their interest in the property back to the true “owner” of the property since they think she is selling to us for too low of a price. The sister and the niece insist that she gets more money for the house. They are insisting on $123,000 as the purchase price before they’ll sign the deed over to the “owner”.
How can I be creative and lawful to make the sister and niece think that the owner is getting a higher price for her house and still allow my partner and I to purchase the house from the “owner” for $91,000?
One solution I’ve thought of is to purchase the house for $123,000 cash with instructions to escrow that $32,000 of the proceeds returned to my partner and I at closing. This would naturally be shielded from the sister and niece. Only the owner, my partner, and I and escrow would know about this arrangement. The remaining $91,000 of the $123,000 would go to the “owner” of the property. How would this work?
Thank you,
Kent
Re: $500 to the person who successfully helps me - Posted by Ken (ILL)
Posted by Ken (ILL) on August 13, 2001 at 20:58:02:
Try this. Mortgage The house from the original owner, gettin the two others to “quit claim” the deed back to her because you are mortgaging for the full amount with a 10-15 year balloon. Then, after you’ve been paying for several years, see if you can pay a reduced amount for cash OR sell of some payments to a note buyer to give the owner some cash. (You too!)
one more suggestion… - Posted by Bryan H (ny)
Posted by Bryan H (ny) on August 13, 2001 at 18:02:19:
One more suggestion…
Offer the sister and niece $123k owner financed- principle only for 5 or 10 years (or whatever they’ll agree to). Include a clause in the note that allows a payoff of the current cash value at any time to extinguish the note (arrange things so the current cash value is your $91k price). Refinance immediatley upon recieving title. They probably won’t go for it, but you don’t have to bring any attention to the cash value clause.
(BTW forget the 500, I’ll settle for a blow by blow account of the deal if you work this out)
$500 to the person who successfully helps me - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on August 12, 2001 at 23:12:05:
One way to do this would be by getting the someone else to step in and enter into a purchase agreement with her being listed as the owner selling the property. This puts her in a position to have to get her sister and niece to quit claim the property over to her in order for to be able to deliver clear title. If the sister and niece refuse she could be facing serious legal problems for trying to sell a property she does not own.
Have the other party write up the purchase agreement for what ever price she wants. Put in some typical weasel clauses for the buyer to back out of the contract. Once the property is quit claimed back over to the seller then the buyer backs out of the purchase agreement using a weasel clause in the contract.
The seller now has legal title and can now turn around and sell to you at your price!
Just have the seller set up the other buyer on her own using someone she knows to keep you out of that part. Then you just step in willing to buy as originally agreed upon at your price. Since the sister and niece have already quit claimed the property to her there is nothing they can do after that to stop her from selling to you at what ever price you agree on. Unless of course, the seller is mentally unstable or something to where the sister and niece could run to court trying to stop the sale on the grounds that the sister is mentally unstable and not in the mental capacity to make financial decisions on her own.
Re: $500 to the person who successfully helps me - Posted by Dave Mckee
Posted by Dave Mckee on August 12, 2001 at 22:42:32:
Kent,
Make an offer to L/O at $123,000 for a $1,000 consideration, three year term. no payments until closing, contingent on title being in the sellers name, a preliminary title report showing no liens, etc.,and a signed deed and escrow instructions placed it a depository escrow, ready to close whenever you decide to. When this is finalised, you can offer to accelerate the term of the option for a discount.(to $91,000) or hold the option for the full term and probably come out just as well, cosidering inflation, etc. Chances are, the seller will go for the discount to get the cash now.
Just one way to look at it.
Dave
Wait a minute!!! - Posted by Bob
Posted by Bob on August 12, 2001 at 14:56:19:
Two things here…
I am new, so forgive my ignorance. After all, I am here to learn.
The posts here seem to be conflicting. Is this technique legal or not? It seems a little sketchy. I would love to know more of the details.
I had a recent post removed because I guess someone thought it was a business propostion. I did not ask for specific dollars, just a chance to work together, with other investors to help me get started.
Then I see this post which is clearly offering a specific dollar amount in return for advice. That is , by definition, a solicitation for business.
I don’t mind at all that this person is asking for advice and is willing to pay for it. Heck, so am I. But I am a little confused as to why my innocuous post was deleted before I could get any meaningful responses, and this post has turned into a significant thread.
Thanx for reading my concern.
Bob
Re: Theft by deception - Posted by Ed Copp (OH)
Posted by Ed Copp (OH) on August 12, 2001 at 14:39:48:
is what you are proposing here. You and your partner want to get a kickback from someone who does not own the property, and can not get it without deceiving the current owners. Then you want a kickback of $32,000 from that con job, which you also become a party to.
Hmmm. Five hundred bucks is a little light for that kind of criminal activity.
Ripoff artist - Posted by Bud Branstetter
Posted by Bud Branstetter on August 12, 2001 at 13:05:58:
You want to make $28,000.00 but only give someone $500 to solve your problem. And you want to do it by taking advantage of someone that that probably needs the money.
The comment is tongue in cheek but doesn’t have to be. The question is what is fair to solve the problem. Is getting a new loan to get the 91K for the lady so bad. Then putting the property in a Pactrust and selling the benefits of ownership at FMV in a few years. How much profit is acceptable may be best to let the sister and neice decide. With them on title it protects the lady from sleezebags.
Re: - Posted by Todd W(CO)
Posted by Todd W(CO) on August 12, 2001 at 09:38:35:
I think what you are talking about is credits or rebates (at least thats what I have heard it called) A common credit is for repairs that need to be done. e.g.: new roof $1500 credit at closing, new carpet $1000 credit at closing etc. etc. I have never heard of a credit as large as 32k but that does not mean it can’t be done. Is there a limit on credits? ask a realtor or Ed Copp here at CREonline, he seems well phrased to the working of jaka$$'$…oops I mean’t realtors (smile) I bet he could answer your question. other than that Jim FL had some great advise…good luck
just my thoughts
Todd Williamson
Buy me lunch instead - Posted by pboone
Posted by pboone on August 12, 2001 at 09:38:28:
Kent,
If you have copies of Title and any(pre-lim)other documents associated,contact me. 503-668-0406 Lets look for mismanaged deed transfers.
Pat
Re: $500 to the person who successfully helps me - Posted by Jim FL
Posted by Jim FL on August 12, 2001 at 24:32:09:
Kent,
Rather than have the money escrowed, try something else. I just would not feel comfortable having someone “Hold” my cash, especially an amount like this.
The sister and neice will have to show up to close and sign docs, unless they quit claim the home back to the seller you are dealing with, before that.
Hopefully they will.
I’d not try to hide anything, it is not just my style.
I think I’d tell the seller to get her own ducks in a rowe first, and then call me.
There certainly are other deals to be had, so you may just be wasting your time on this one for now.
But, you seem to want this house, so I’ll take a stab at some ideas here. And of course this also means I’ll have to make some assumptions here as well.
What about going ahead with a price of $123k, and having the seller carry a note for the difference between the $123k and the $91k, at a LOW interest rate, and maybe no payments?
Then arrange a table funding of the second, for a SEVERE discount. I’d make sure that the sale of the home was contingent on the “owner” selling this note at the table.
The seller simply sells this note to someone you know and trust for an amount you are comfortable with, and they in turn allow you to buy them out. (say for, $100?)
You can have all of this arranged ahead of time, and the docs prepared. The note sale does not need to be viewd by the relatives, as long as they give title back to the seller before closing.
If they do not, I don’t see this working without it.
Which they may, if the “owner” can show them a contract for the $123k sale price.
I did make an assumption here. I assumed that there was no lender involved, since you mentioned bringing cash to the close, and not a loan.
If there was a lender involved, I’d not do this, because it would be loan fraud unless it was disclosed to the lender.
If it was disclosed, I’m also pretty sure any lender would not allow this to happen.
I’m not very savvy at structuring notes, so I cannot say whether or not this can be done for sure, but it may be worth a look over by your attny.
You may also get the home under an agreement for deed or something, and have it structured so that should you go to pay it off before the maturity date, the payoff is less than the $123k, perhaps down to the $91k?
Can you write a discounted payoff into a contract sale?
Just a few ideas off the top of my tired head.
Good luck, and if you get this deal done, good for you.
Just send me an e-mail for the address to which you may send the check.
Have a great day,
Jim FL
You can keep the $ 500, but… - Posted by JT - IN
Posted by JT - IN on August 12, 2001 at 24:25:02:
You could have the person that you are dealing with, (that you are calling the home seller and “owns”, who doesn’t legally own the property), petition the court, to have the Sister and Niece to re-deed the property to her, or to a Trust, that she would then control.
You don’t mention whether the person you are calling owner, ever had the property in her name, solely, since she was divorced, or if there are any court documents that show the control of the property passign to her, as a result of the divorce. Shoudl there be a documentation trail, showing the past ownership and control being with her, then she may have a chance, assuming this is what she is willing to attempt.
As I had previously replied, about this question, I think that there is much more to a set of circumstances such as this, than you are making it out to be. Good luck in getting it worked out the way you wish.
JT - IN
Re: Wait a minute!!! - Posted by Bud Branstetter
Posted by Bud Branstetter on August 12, 2001 at 16:22:52:
Bob,
I did not see your post but you must realize this is a private forum. The reponsibility of the Vaughn’s is to try and keep it free from advertizers so that it does not degenerate. They have to use their discretion. Not everyone agrees with it all the time but it is their site.
There are many approaches to his problem. The concept between ethics can get blurred when making money. It this case the woman tried to “hide” or protect her asset from an ex. We don’t know if this is right or not. The investor is intitled to a good deal. But is the lady fully cognizant of the value. The title may not actually be in her name altough she has possession. It could take a quiet title action to resolve or it could take a forthright discussion with the relatives. When it goes over to being unethical or even illegal can be gray.
Email me your post and I can more fully evaluate why it was pulled.
Re: Theft by deception - Posted by Kent Sayre
Posted by Kent Sayre on August 12, 2001 at 14:52:19:
Ed,
Part of the difficulty with email is that I have not conveyed the whole story to you so you obviously mindread for the rest of the details. The seller wants to sell for $91,000 and I’m willing to be creative yet not be criminal.
Ed, your post contributes nothing to helping me out. It only helps you be self-serving and righteous about what you consider to be “criminal”. Criminal according to whom? According to what laws?
I’m not going to get into a morality/ethics discussion. I posted an honest question and asked for advice. I may try the strategies of the people who helpfully responded and for the one that works, I will honor the $500 thank-you reward.
Thanks,
Kent Sayre
P.S. Ed, I won’t be replying any further after this message. I’ve got much better things to do with my time (i.e., hunt down other deals) than get into a counterproductive thread about what is criminal and what is creative.
Re: Deadbeat landlord eviction? - Posted by Rich-CA
Posted by Rich-CA on May 07, 2007 at 12:04:36:
It depends on the state and on your lease. Does your lease say they have to have the utilities in their name? Does it say that expenses the tenant incurs are added to the rent due? There are a variety of clauses in a lease that spell out the tenant’s responsibilities and your enforcement rights.
Beyond the lease, it depends on where the property is located, what the rules are. For example, CA is not too landlord friendly, AZ is very landlord friendly, and TX is between.
Re: Deadbeat landlord eviction? - Posted by Russ Sims
Posted by Russ Sims on May 04, 2007 at 18:39:00:
I understand the tempatation to do the eviction on your own, but I strongly advise against it. Yes, I am in Washington as well and yes, I have done my own evictions. If you slip up in the due process phase, like screwing up the 3 day notice, wording the summons
incorrectly, etc. you will have to start the whole process all over again if your errors are discovered. And hope beyond hope the tenant doesn’t decide to show up in court. I can think of half a dozen ways that can ruin your day…The other thing we discoverd is that most commisioners don’t like to see a landlord representing themselves. Attorneys (which the commisioners are) like to protect the jobs of attorneys. It’s a club thing, I guess.
My advice would be to hire a firm such as Landlord Solutions ph#866-TO-EVICT. Thay are based in Tacoma but operate in the major Puget Sound counties. I’ve used them for years; they are excellent at what they do, with personalized service and you can call them for advice without worrying about an attorney charging you for the call. They handle everyhting from the 3 day notice to the court appearance if necessary, to the physical moveout if necessary. And for about $20 a month they’ll even collect your rent and start eviction when the rent is late. As you can tell, I am a very happy customer!(most evictions are between $500 and $800)
Anyway, if you accept partial rent payment, you must issue another 3 day notice with the balance due on it, and that whole eviction clock gets reset to minute one. That’s why you shouldn’t accept partial rent payment, tempting though it might be.
We’ve had tenants not pay the water utility, so we pay it and add it to their rent. If they don’t pay it along with rent we start eviction, period. Funny how that water bill becomes a priority for them from that point on.
Good Luck!
Re: Deadbeat landlord eviction? - Posted by Joe Kaiser
Posted by Joe Kaiser on May 04, 2007 at 18:27:54:
Evictions are highly technical and even one tiny mistake can result in
getting you kicked out of court and waiting another month or two for a
hearing. Not worth it.
We just completed an eviction on a property we ended up with by
purchasing and foreclosing a defaulted contract. Evicting the former
owner took one month and $625, (and I didn’t spend a moment
dealing with it).
A bargain.
Joe
Don’t you get it??? - Posted by Blane (MI)
Posted by Blane (MI) on August 13, 2001 at 15:45:32:
The “seller” is not a seller!! And the true owners want $123,000 not $91,000. It can’t get much clearer than that.
Surprised by Ed’s response! - Posted by Observer
Posted by Observer on August 13, 2001 at 14:09:40:
Kent, do a search of Ed Copp’s posts and you’ll notice a trend in these type of “helpful” responses.