A question of motivation - Posted by Steve D

Posted by E.Eka on October 08, 2003 at 10:43:10:

It’s ALWAYS better to sell a property than to have it foreclosed. His credit would be destroyed. The seller’s credit is probably stained but it’s still better than having a foreclosure on it.

As to your second question, usually the mortgagees (lenders of mortgages) can come after the lawyer after foreclosure if there is a deficiency after the auction. You’re only protected from that if you’re in bankruptcy. The exception is if the lenders agree to accept less than what is owed. Or a short sale. Usually the short sale will work after the property becomes REO. Depending on the market, the lender would consider the cost/benefit of auctioning the property or taking you lower offer.

A question of motivation - Posted by Steve D

Posted by Steve D on October 08, 2003 at 09:58:58:

I have a seller, that is trying to sell a rental property that needs rehab work. The asking price (which is too high) is below whats owed (~$160k owed, most I’ll offer on it is $120k), and the place is about to go into foreclosure.

It’s owned by an attorney that has leased it to the same family for may years and never done any maint.

Why would someone sell at significantly below the money owed and not just let the bank take it? Do/Can the first and second mortgage holders come after him after foreclose for the remaining amount they are owed, plus fees? (this is texas)