Posted by Barry (FL) on April 29, 2007 at 23:44:36:
Not odd at all. Banks are exempt from many laws. They have a great lobby.
Did you know that if you have an illigitimate charge against a bank or CC account you only have 60 days to report it but if they screw up and make an error in your favor they have no time limit to collect.
Equity theft prevention nonsense … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on April 24, 2007 at 20:36:15:
Can anyone pls tell me which states have passed this BS legislation involving “Equity theft”? You know, the new laws that make it impossible to buy or HELP anyone in foreclosure. I think NY recently passed it … and somewhere in the midwest. How about PA?
I don’t do a lot of out of state deals, but want to be sure I don’t end up the subject of some half witted law graduates’ witch-hunt.
Thanks.
RL
Re: Equity theft prevention nonsense … - Posted by RE King
Posted by RE King on April 28, 2007 at 18:45:41:
Illinois for one, has one. Affects homeowners facing foreclosure or tax sale.
If you do not let them stay in the property, or do not reconvey or promise to reconvey the property back to them in the future, you are exempt. So, in this case you can still do a lot of business.
If you let them stay and reconvey in the future, there are all sorts of requirements like them receiving 82% of FMV, etc.
I say…I say… Leave em all alone boys - Posted by sheriff LK
Posted by sheriff LK on April 25, 2007 at 21:11:22:
Thats it, they got us …throw down dem contracts and and git back in yur truck and head back up em dem hill where yall come from. It was a good ride, but it had to end someday.
All of this reminds me of a backwards southern sheriff on a bad made for TV movie. After the sheriff (AG) runs off all of the foreclosure investors, he and his investing posse go in and loot all the motivated sellers.
Seems like I’ve seen that one.
Florida - Posted by Marc Donovan
Posted by Marc Donovan on April 25, 2007 at 06:50:01:
and until it makes its way through the courts, it’s a dangerous territory.
(c) “Victimize” means any course of action intended to dupe, swindle, or cheat a homeowner subject to a residential foreclosure proceeding. The factors that a court shall review when determining whether a course of action is victimizing a homeowner are:
The compensation received relative to the risk and the amount of work involved.
The number of homeowners involved.
The relative bargaining position of the parties.
The relative knowledge and sophistication of the parties.
Representations made in the inducement.
The timing of the agreement.
This basically leaves it up to the judge and jury to decide. One over-zealous prosecutor (no such thing right?) and you are looking at 15K fine per deal plus restitution.
Re: Equity theft prevention nonsense … - Posted by Ed in Idaho
Posted by Ed in Idaho on April 25, 2007 at 02:51:09:
Does this mean that if a bank were to forclose on a house that is valued at $100,000 and they are only owed $50,000, they would have to give the owner $50,000 or they would be guilty of ‘Equity Theft’? I doubt they have to give a penny. Sounds like the lenders are behind this one. But it would sure be nice to buy property with equity in it, let it go to forclosure, and have the bank cash out your equity for you. Buying it thru an untraceable corp of some kind of course.
What’s the strategy? - Posted by Ed in Idaho
Posted by Ed in Idaho on April 25, 2007 at 02:07:31:
If this truly is a trend that will catch on from state-to-state (lawyer-to lawyer) what is the best strategy to solve it? Is this really a main turning point in buying forclosures or pre-forclosures? Is it as easy as bringing the financing up to date and out of forclosure, then taking control or possession of the property? I can see some very creative deals happening if this is the case. One example: Loan to the owner at a huge interest rate with a ballon payment due in two months secured by a lien on the property. When the forclosure is gone, proceed with the sales agreement hashed out in the beginning of the deal. Hope it all works out but if it all falls apart, proceed with your own forclosure. I can see a whole new forum started if this is the case.
Re: Equity theft prevention nonsense … - Posted by LeonNC
Posted by LeonNC on April 24, 2007 at 21:28:53:
It’s funny because I just watched the guy from Trademark properties in SC buy a house in preforeclosure on national television.
At the end of the show they said his profit potential was $78k. I believe he bought it from another investor who apparently couldn’t afford the payments and make the necessary repairs to sell the house.
It must be ok for one vulture to bail out another.
Leon
HOORAY! - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on April 28, 2007 at 19:37:25:
Finally a state law regarding this THAT MAKES SENSE!
I still think it is bad for homeowners, but it’s a compromise that allows homeowners to be protected and investors to make a living.
Bravo Illinois.
RL
Re: Florida - Posted by IB (NJ)
Posted by IB (NJ) on April 25, 2007 at 23:11:14:
Has this been passed and made into law?
I was looking into investing in FL.
Re: Florida - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on April 25, 2007 at 12:50:16:
“1. The compensation received relative to the risk and the amount of work involved.” … should be entertaining to see a beurocrat try and act like a businessman. They wouldn’t know risk and reward if they were slammed in the head by it.
RL
Re: Florida - Posted by Joe Kaiser
Posted by Joe Kaiser on April 25, 2007 at 12:44:18:
Amazing stuff . . .
Sorry Guys… - Posted by Ed in Idaho
Posted by Ed in Idaho on April 25, 2007 at 09:24:17:
I meant this post as sort of a joke. I know there is no way in H E double toothpicks that the banks or lenders would have to pay a dime more than they would have to if a $100,000 property that owed $50,000 was forclosed on and only sold for $50,000. Mostly trying to get the creative juices flowing for solutions around this problem before it hits my state if this is the trend of the future. Thanks for the posts. I love this site.
Re: Equity theft prevention nonsense … - Posted by Bob Smith
Posted by Bob Smith on April 25, 2007 at 09:12:29:
Not in Florida. Financial institutions are specfically exempt from its new “equity theft” law.
Re: Equity theft prevention nonsense … - Posted by Frank Chin
Posted by Frank Chin on April 25, 2007 at 08:39:48:
Ed:
If it was foreclosed on by the bank, becomes an REO, and goes to auction, or sold directly, and it went for $100,000, the overage of $50,000 goes to to the homeowner.
In reading thru complaints against foreclosure rescuers, what they do have homeowners sign waiver agreements transferring the overage to the “rescuer investor”.
Most of the rescuers pay the homeowner something during the rescue, sometimes very little, but not the entire equity, and certainly not before they sell it.
The NY State Home Equity Theft Prevention act requires the investor to pay at least 82% of FMV from what I can recall, and exempts banks, family members from certain provisions.
Frank Chin
Re: Equity theft prevention nonsense … - Posted by Barry (FL)
Posted by Barry (FL) on April 25, 2007 at 07:33:12:
I think you’ll find lenders are exempt from most all of these laws.
Prediction … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on April 24, 2007 at 22:15:38:
I saw the show too, and actually it was from a lady who lived there and NOT an investor. (if my memory serves me correctly)
That being the case …I believe the guy from Trademark should be thrown in jail for taking advantage of someone in foreclosure.
IT IS MY GUESS that you will see politicians come forward and say that shows like “FLIP THIS HOUSE” should be taken off the air - because a lot of the deals come from people in foreclosure. THAT’S MY PREDICTION - REMEMBER YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!
RL
Re: Florida - Posted by Barry (FL)
Posted by Barry (FL) on April 26, 2007 at 07:41:37:
Yes as of last July 1.
Re: Florida - Posted by Barry (FL)
Posted by Barry (FL) on April 26, 2007 at 07:44:07:
Not sure if it would be terribly entertaining to be on the recieving end of one of the test cases that are already in the system. I think that would be like getting “slammed in the head”.
Re: Florida - Posted by keith
Posted by keith on April 27, 2007 at 21:52:39:
it appears that if you are truly saving someone from foreclosure anyway, that you are honest and up front, offering some compensation that it’s better than them walking away with nothing.
The article is vague, sounds like it would be open to wide interpretation. Besides, I don’t see most investors here as “skimmers”.
Has anyone run this by an attorney for more clarification?
Keith