Re: DOS…only the serious need read (long) - Posted by Bill Gatten
Posted by Bill Gatten on March 25, 2001 at 17:33:25:
You know? (no offense to anyone. please…), but I truly have trouble with this line of thinking, and I see it and charge at it, Don Quixote-like, every waking minute of my post pubescent whiny little life (This is not directed at you Jim?you just stimulated it).
A guy says: "I know an Agreement of Sale violates the DOS, and I don’t want to violate the DOS. I know the co-beneficiary third-party trustee land trust concept can avoid the DOS and provide me exactly the same benefits (and then some) as the Agreement of Sale, but with tremendously more protection (i.e., “I know all about land trusts…”)…but I don’t want to do that! So how on Earth can I go about doing something that won’t violate the Due on Sale Clause, and still do the Agreement of Sale, which does violate the Due on Sale clause…but without violating it? ?
Why? Why? (?Why…? he screams silently within his muted rum-soaked grizzled old brain, as he clutches his throat and gasps for another breath, finally slumping to the floor. WHY WON’T THEY LISTEN?? WHY?)
If I post too much about the PACTrust, they delete the post. If I don’t post at all, folks run around asking, What?s the PACTrust? Or getting into jams that the PT could save them from. If I post just a teensy little bit, someone invariably challenges me as trying to advertise for my own benefit, or claiming the sky is falling, or something (…Joe).
Get this straight…you don’t need me to do what I do! The PACTrust has become (is becoming) as generic an instrument as a Lease Option, a Wrap, Option, Contract, etc… It?s not an alternative for any of these things…is another way to DO them ALL.
Someone…pleeeease get it!!! You don’t have to violate DOS’s, you don’t have to worry about who records and who doesn’t record; you don’t have to take chances; you don’t have to worry about someone else’s potential for legal and personal problems affecting your property. You don’t have to pay me or anyone else to do what I (and Bud Branstetter, and Jim Kenedy, and Randy Steadham, and Marty Weisberg, and Jim Pasquini, and Bill Young, and Bill Mc Kee, and Glen (OH), and Greg Makin and Tim Pannebecker)…and on and on…do. And, you don’t have to give up equity, appreciation, tax write-off or anything else if you don’t want to. The PT just allows you to conveniently do so, if doing so can make you a ho? lot more money with a ho lot more safety.
Get a trust agreement, an Assignment form, and Beneficiary Agreement and a Lease–dad gum it! And just do it! No matter what you’ve been told or lead to believe, it’s not complicated…it?s just more protective and uses a few more documents.
Corny Analogy Number 34
G.E. Makes a portable helicopter that will get you to work in back above the traffic…it has a tubular frame, a 50 hp motor and a bucket seat…that?s it. No windshield. No instruments. Nothing else. Just yank the rope and go. Kind’a like a flying motorcycle. AND it works and costs about $30,000 (less than a good car).
Now the Mc Cullough company has a portable helicopter of about the same size, made of the same tubular steel frame and with the same engine. This one, however, sports a high-gloss snazzy molded cabin enclosure, a tinted plexi-glass windshield (with wipers), a full instrument panel in a Mahogany dashboard, a parachute that deploys automatically through the top of the rotor shaft if something goes wrong, spare fuel tanks, titanium rotors and a CD stereo player.
Now…one can be seen as more complicated than the other (for a good reason…it has more stuff, it?s safer and better). But, think about it, if the cost were the same (you could hire pilot if you wanted to, you you don?t have to)…which one would you prefer to own? With either one you might need some lessons in the beginning from Bud Branstetter, or from one of the other folks I mentioned above: but wouldn’t that second one work for you?
Just think about it.