HI KARP… - Posted by ScottE
Posted by ScottE on April 09, 1999 at 21:09:43:
nt
Re: DOS CLAUSE - Posted by Brad
Posted by Brad on April 09, 1999 at 19:12:49:
What is so wrong with what I said? If you are successful at what you are doing, then you should have plenty of money to buy real estate. Everyone I know does it the right way because they have the money for it. They don’t have to dishonestly sneak around and practice unethical tactics in acquiring their properties and wealth. They know how to make an HONEST living.
Re: What a Joke! - Posted by Vickie
Posted by Vickie on April 10, 1999 at 20:52:06:
I can only go by my past experience with Nationwide, but here are your answers:
(1)They don’t advertise as a quick rich scheme. They are similar to any course on this site that tells you the potential that can be achieved in rehabbing/flipping.
(2)They don’t adverise ‘Double your money’. Their literature states, “Big Profit Splits”
(3)I was hesitant in joining at first and they did not high-pressure me.
(4)I went over step by step with my advisor every aspect of my joint venture with them including compensation/formulas for deals they accept, etc and he answered every question I had.
(5)I got my professional opinions from the references they provided me and spoke to several of them.
(6)I did think it over and investigated the firm before I made a final decision and was not pressured into making one.
(7)I received an annual report and financial statement along with my references.
As for the BBB closing in Fort Myers, this is true; however the Miami branch of the BBB took over and provided all of the information I needed. I also checked with the State Attorney General’s office; the Chamber of Commerce; and the references provided. I was also invited to meet with the advisors I’d work with at their Florida facility (was unable to because I was still working and the distance in traveling).
In my experience, NationWide has been excellent because I was a beginner; lacked confidence; and needed the help. I think their materials/training/consulting and joint ventures were well worth the $500 total cost. My alternatives were to find a local investor or use the coaching methods of Sheets/LeGrand/Whitney but I thought the thousands they charge without being involved in any of my deals was outrageous.
I would definitely recommend NationWide to you or anyone else that is unhappy with how their real estate investing is going.
Good luck to you and I hope you become successful like a lot of us NationWide people
Go ahead and make my day. - Posted by Rick Vesole
Posted by Rick Vesole on April 10, 1999 at 15:14:20:
Speaking of roaches scurrying from the light, why haven’t you responded to Dan Lubell’s challenge to have him review your taxes and request an audit if he determines that you have cheated the IRS?
Re: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE - Posted by JohnK(CA)
Posted by JohnK(CA) on April 10, 1999 at 13:47:30:
Brad,(Fast skater?)
I believe you’re doing all you can and all you know how to do to find someone to chat with. Pulling our leg as it were. Why don’t you go to one of the chat rooms on AOL. I don’t think you have anything of a constructive nature to contribute to this news group.
JohnK(CA)
Re: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…AGAIN - Posted by JPiper
Posted by JPiper on April 10, 1999 at 13:36:13:
Please re-read my post. It appears that you missed my questions. Here was one of my questions: “On what factual evidence did you base your conclusions that transferring a property encumbered by a loan is “dishonest”, “shameful”, “stupid”, “sleazey”, or “lying”?”
Here was your answer: “That is what is dishonest Jim, the transfer without telling the lender.”
For your review, here is the due on sale clause again:
“17. Transfer of the Property or a Beneficial Interest in Borrower. If all or any part of the Property or any interest in it is sold or transferred (or if a beneficial interest in Borrower is sold or transferred and Borrower is not a natural person) without Lender’s prior written consent, Lender may, at its option, require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument. However, this option shall not be exercised by Lender if exercise is prohibited by federal law as of the date of this Security Instrument.”
Where in this clause do you see anything about “telling the lender”? Where in this clause does it require me to notify the lender? Where in this clause does it prohibit transfer without prior written consent?
Again, you’re using more rhetoric. Words like sleazey, dishonest, and pathetic are conclusions that you are drawing. What FACTS do you base your opinion/conclusion on?? Why don’t you raise the level of your argument from mere rhetoric to a fact-based argument?
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE
JPiper
Re: Thats why we have law makers,and the law makers haven’t deemed it a crime to buy property subject to a loan with a DOS - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on April 10, 1999 at 15:03:49:
So what was the lying part? Don’t you have to exchange words in order to tell a lie?? Explain the lie?
Where’s the dishonesty?
Where in the DOS clause, does it say, “You MUST contact the lender FIRST so they can choose whether or not to exercise their OPTION”??
I missed that part, can you point that out where is says that? The why I understood that clause to read, is, “IF” you DO assume the loan without getting written permission from the lender, “THEN” they retain the “OPTION” to call the loan due. It doesn’t say they “WILL” call the loan due! So if you disclosed everything regarding the lenders “OPTION” of having that right to call the loan due between the buyer and seller and both parties agree to the risks involved that the lender “MAY” call the loan later if they chose to exercise their “OPTION” to do so, then “WHO” was being dishonest and lying to who?? Both parties were fully informed of any and all risks involved. That’s being “HONEST”, NOT “DISHONEST”! Where’s the lie?? You “DO NOT” have to contact the lender prior to doing so.
If this were all dishonest and lying, do you think their would be any attorney’s or any title companies out there that would handle any of these type of transactions?? What would they have to gain by participating in transactions like this?? They would have more to lose, wouldn’t you agree?? So if this was dishonest and lying as you claim it is, why would all the attorney’s and title companies out their handle all the transactions being done this way?
Think about it. Let’s say I was the seller and I allowed someone to take over my loan “subject to”. My attorney, the buyers attorney, and the title company all handle the sale of this transaction. Then later the bank finds out and decides to call the due creating a problem between the buyer and myself. Does that mean I would be able to sue the buyer, the buyers attorney, my attorney, and the title company for having gone along with this transaction and for not disclosing to me that this transaction was dishonest and lying to the lender since no one informed the lender prior to closing the deal? If it’s dishonest and lying like your claiming it to be, then wouldn’t attorney’s and title companies “REQUIRE” a written approval from the lender “BEFORE” they would participate in closing the transaction?? After all, if it’s dishonest and lying as you think it is, then all these attorney’s and title companies would be guilty of fraud also! Why would any of them put themselves into that kind of a position if what you believe were to be true regarding being dishonest and lying to the lender. Committing fraud to a bank is a serious felony. If it’s not fraud, then how can it be dishonest and lying? Being dishonest and lying to a lender is fraud!
Re: I’m a stupid guy - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on April 10, 1999 at 13:36:53:
Who lied to who? What was the lie?
Re: DOS CLAUSE - Posted by Brad Crouch
Posted by Brad Crouch on April 10, 1999 at 12:45:55:
Brad,
> I can conduct my business dealings in good
> conscience. Can you do the same?
ABSOLUTELY!
> Can you look at yourself in the mirror each night
> when you participate in dishonest business tactics?
No, I couldn’t! “Dishonest business tactics” are the key words here. The problem is that you don’t know how much you don’t know!
You have taken a position that is ridiculous. And obviously without any study or research. Try putting your brain into gear before putting your mouth into motion.
You must be VERY young or you would have the wisdom to check out your position more throughly, before running off at the mouth.
If you insist on continuing to post, please include your last name to make sure that nobody could POSSIBLY think you and I are the same person.
Brad Crouch
Re:Sleazy & unethical - Posted by Charles - DFW
Posted by Charles - DFW on April 10, 1999 at 23:28:37:
Brad,
If you think the people that “violate” the DOS are “sleazy & unethical”, what about the banks.
These sleazy, unethical, and greedy banks. You borrow money to buy a place to live, or a place for someone else to live, and they not only expect you to pay it back but they want to charge you interest on top of that. How greeedy, unethical, sleazy can you get. Not only that they make you sign tons of paper work that you will pay them back (including the interest). I am an honest person, even though it is greedy and sleazy for them to expect me to pay them back, if I say I will pay then I will. Why waste all the time with stupid paper work.
Standing for Ethics & Moral,
Charles,
ps. All you shamefull people outther “violating” the DOS clause need to stop. And quit paying those greedy banks interest also!
'splain Lucy - Posted by DavidV
Posted by DavidV on April 09, 1999 at 22:33:38:
Please explain how this is stupid, shameful, and sleazey. Do you know how this even works? All you are doing is a business transaction that gives a bank the “option” to get all of their money out of the deal" IF" they chose to do so. Maybe i wuz dropped on my head early in life but i can’t see anything shameful or sleazey about that.
Should we have a Due On Sale Violators Anonymous Club or an Anonymous Due On Sale Violators Club?(nt) - Posted by Charles-DFW
Posted by Charles-DFW on April 11, 1999 at 05:10:43:
…
Shameful? How about . . . - Posted by raelynn mitchell
Posted by raelynn mitchell on April 10, 1999 at 14:34:45:
letting the seller who can no longer make the payments give the house back to the bank. Now the bank has a property it does not want.
What if the bank gets too many of these? Then THEY become shameful, because they will upon audit be shut down by the fine FDIC. Do you know what happens when a bank is closed by the FDIC? Among other things:
-
A lot of former bank employees are now out of a job.
-
Many people who have their life savings on deposit in that institution are now unable to make the withdrawals they may have been making to pay for their food and shelter. They ARE allowed withdrawals, but the gov’t tells them how much, and it is a set dollar amount. If they need more than that amount, then they have a problem called lack of cash flow.
If, on the other hand, someone buys the house subject to the existing mortgage, then maybe there won’t be enough non-performing loans on the bank’s books to cause a bank closure. Maybe the people living off the interest in their bank accounts at this bank won’t have their lives (and their cash flow) interrupted.
Choice A, investor takes property subject to.
Choice B, bank gets property, gets too many of these, and gets shut down.
Of the above choices, which one is shameful?
Re: What a Joke! - Posted by JohnBoy
Posted by JohnBoy on April 10, 1999 at 21:18:51:
“Big Profit Splits” Doesn’t that imply more than double your money??
Why do they REFUSE to provide references? You say they gave you references, but everyone that I read posts on that invested with them say they refused to give any references!
The Miami BBB was also EXPELLED! read the news release.
When they were trashing this board last week, they made nothing but excuses about reasons for not providing references. The only reference they would provide was to check them out with their local BBB which has been EXPELLED since July of 97.
Nationwides biggest sales pitch from my understanding is that they will put up their money to fund your deals and split profits with you. The only problem is they will not fund any deals with their customers according to many posts made from those customers that say they feel they were ripped off. Yet Nationwide claimed they never had ONE single complaint!
How many deals they fund with their money that you brought them???
As far as getting information on flipping properties, you can get most of that here for free. But if you feel you need more education you can find courses here on this site for less than $500 that will show you exactly what you need to know to flip properties and you don’t need to rely on any partners to put up the money. You can make MORE money on your own.
If Nationwide was just offering a course in how to do this for $500 or whatever, that would be one thing. But they’re not offering that. What they offer is to put up the money by partnering with you on any deals you bring them that meet their buying criteria. The only problem is when someone brings them the deal that not only meets their initial buying criteria, but based on multiple posts from their customers giving the details of the deals they brought to Nationwide, EXCEEDED their buying criteria! But Nationwide refused to fund the deals making lame excuses on how they don’t meet their criteria! Is that being an honest business??
So I ask you, how many actual deals has Nationwide funded for YOU???
Re: Go ahead and make my day. - Posted by Brad
Posted by Brad on April 10, 1999 at 15:18:39:
Rick, this isn’t about taxes. It is about the DOS Clause. Quit trying to change the subject. What do you have to hide?
P.S. I would like your attorney number please.
Re: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE…AGAIN - Posted by Brad
Posted by Brad on April 10, 1999 at 13:45:20:
Jim, let’s stop playing the b.s. games. It is IMPLIED that you need to tell the lender. What you are saying is nonsense, and we both know it. Bottom line, you will attempt to rationalize your decision. Someone who has to sink to these depths obviously isn’t very successful at real estate. Since you think there is nothing wrong with this, then I have a challenge for you:
Give me the loan number, name of the bank, and the name in which the mortgage was originally issued. I’ll contact the bank and see if they feel the same way about it that you do. In other words, put up or shut up.
Re: 'splain Lucy - Posted by Brad
Posted by Brad on April 10, 1999 at 24:42:57:
Please explain how these types of tactics are honest? You can’t because it is DISHONEST. In other words, it is LYING.
Re: What a Joke! - Posted by Niklaus Worth
Posted by Niklaus Worth on August 23, 2005 at 17:28:22:
sport book casino arizona casinos online sports casino best wisconsin casinos casino rama niagra fallsview casino resort winstar casino free video poker casino mystic lake casino you play casino poker