Re: A Lender/Legal Quagmire… - Posted by JPiper
Posted by JPiper on March 11, 1999 at 10:10:56:
Not a bad idea…I’ll see if it flies.
JPiper
Re: A Lender/Legal Quagmire… - Posted by JPiper
Posted by JPiper on March 11, 1999 at 10:14:43:
Thanks for the response Rick.
This was my initial thought…and my initial approach. Of course I have not yet spoken with anyone other than the initial contact. Today I going to pull the deed of trust and read it (don’t have a clue what it says)…and see what powers the lender does in fact have.
I got a good chuckle out of your last point, that putting their own insurance on the property would appear to violate their policy. Interesting…
JPiper
Re: Follow Up Question - Posted by Bill Gatten
Posted by Bill Gatten on March 11, 1999 at 13:37:11:
Karp,
Give me your address so I can [re]send the books I promised. And thanks again for the great review and editing job… haven’t found anything I disagree with yet, and find your comments even flattering (except for the one about the book being a total piece of stupid garbage that should have gone down with the Andrea Doria).
Re. your question above: No.
Bill
Oh yes…an elaboration…the only challenge we ever have with insurance is that some HO carriers won’t do non-resident owner (landlord policies), so the seller has to find another carrier (we do that for them in Escrow). However, that’s no different that what happens when any homeowner moves out of a property and converts it to a rental (same deal).
So. How was Dallas? Sorry I couldn’t make it this year (will next year though…if they’ll have me).
Bill
Re: A Lender/Legal Quagmire… - Posted by David(Ca)
Posted by David(Ca) on March 11, 1999 at 09:04:02:
If I can believe my insurance agent, I DO know that nothing will be sent to the mortgagee because he is the person that would send it. By the way, this was his idea so I have to believe we are understanding each other.
Re: A Lender/Legal Quagmire… - Posted by JPiper
Posted by JPiper on March 11, 1999 at 10:31:12:
Bill:
Thanks for the response.
You say that there is no requirement in the clause you cited that the borrower be the named insured.
However the clause does state that the borrower shall keep the improvements insured. Evidently you’re drawing a distinction here between the borrower and the named insured.
In this case I’m not the borrower…but I am the named insured. Would you care to elaborate on how the borrower in this case has provided insurance as outlined in the clause you cited?
JPiper