Posted by J. Clifton on February 27, 2001 at 16:12:14:
Indeed! The whole thrust of the story is moot, as the writer would have clearly objected to the investor’s actions even if NO owner had made a complaint, or all had indicated they were fully informed/aware of the consequences of the deals. He just didn’t like the very EXISTENCE of a subject-to type option. A standard HUD booklet (PA-426-H, How to Avoid Foreclosure) reads just like the Denver Post article, with the same mentality—“institutional/government approved or licensed solutions, good, private party non-conventional alternatives, scams.”
The underlying problem is the journalist (and in fact, most people) don’t see creative RE investors as valid business operators, faced with meeting the standard requirements of a business system (that is, to make a profit, protect a profit, and to lower risks). They see buying or owning residential property strictly as consumer activity, with the consumers/owners’ “rights” as the primary factor. Investors are just supposed to likewise “consume” (pay out bail-out money with no expectations of a return), and assume broad liability in all cases. To the media and the government, only banks, brokers and other state-controlled people are supposed to make money in the RE industry; only state-regulated parties can be reputable businesses. After all, the whole private sector is just a scam!
The Denver Post is doing a five-day front page story on foreclosure scams/sub-prime lending in the Denver area. Very interesting reading: www.denverpost.com/business/fore0225.htm
I know some of the people mentioned, and they are low-lifes that deserve the bad press. However, I agree that the article was a “goody two shoes” look at foreclosure. It fails to mention the other thousands of people that either lost their houses to the bank or sold it to an investor and were happy about it. Sympathy sells papers more than reality.
Also, the article contained numerous incorrect statements of law, including the fact that a deed must be notarized (correct terminology is “acknowledged”) to be legal and that an individual cannot take an acknowledgement when the deed names his corporation as grantee. Both of these statement are flat wrong.
Posted by Redline on February 27, 2001 at 12:20:17:
These articles are so completely biased.
It makes ALL RE investors sound like crooks and plays up the “poor old wife and crying kids” theme.
Notice how they don’t play on the fact that these people are going to lose their houses because they don’t pay their bills! I guess that part of the equation is OK. They should be able to not pay and stay in their homes I guess … It’s the American way?
Great stuff! Thanks a lot Bob. Some minor factual errors. Some major misrepresentations. But well written. I will read every article. That Hens guy that bought 28 properties at sale, and got none, lmao, what moron.
Re: Front page news - Denver foreclosure scams - Posted by Jim IL
Posted by Jim IL on February 26, 2001 at 22:47:30:
Bob,
While this article does bother me to the extent that it may make “some” sellers reluctant to call on us, I see a couple of other things here.
I see that we need to make sure all our paper work is correct and in order.
All CYA docs are signed and notarized properly, and that we record things AFTER we complete due diligence, part of which is explaining the transaction to the seller fully.
And the other point, that one disgruntled seller in the story said that she only called this investor AFTER getting his card 9 or 10 times, and that she saw his picture.
So, we need to STAY after these pre-foreclosure people and make our contact with them easy to remember, or eye catching.
Frankly, a picture of me on my cards would scare most sellers, but some nice layout or color can’t hurt.
Posted by Ben (NJ) on February 27, 2001 at 16:12:35:
recently one of my competitors got slammed in the media
for foreclosing on a woman’s house in Jersey City for unpaid taxes. The reporter “conveniently” left out the fact that the woman had not paid taxes since 1984 and also had a pretty decent income of $44,000 per year. Those are material facts!