Land Trusts vs. EHT’s = Apples & Oranges - Posted by John Dockter
Posted by John Dockter on April 07, 2011 at 07:25:35:
are talking about land trusts. I agree that land trusts by themselves do not provide the necessary asset protection.
When we talk about an EHT, a land trust is only one part of the system. In BG’s own words: "…the Equity Holding Transfer Systemï¿½ (EHT), we have integrated the common law land trust model with a triple-net lease agreement, an assignment of beneficiary interest, a beneficiary agreement and a limited power of attorney. This combination of forms
allows for a clear and safe transfer of ownership benefits from one party to another without a title transfer or the standard risk of seller-assisted financing arrangements.
The EHT very conveniently allows for the facilitation of all of the fee-simple ownership benefits of virtually any “creative financing” method, including the desired end-results and objectives of: the lease option,
the lease purchase, the equity-share, the wrap-around mortgage (AITD or AIM), the contract-for-deed (i.e., the land sale contract), or any other subject-to seller carry arrangements.
The system can also accommodate safe, fast and simple
condominiumization of multi-unit buildings, fast and simple time-shares, fast and simple seller-carry bridge loans, the simplest partnering arrangements, full asset protection, etc."
The folks on this forum are talking about the limits of a land trust, correctly, but when combined the way BG does it, it’s much more. Now hopefully we can agree as to their comparative value and benefits. A land trust is NOT an EHT.