My Extremely Long Response - Posted by Tony-VA
Posted by Tony-VA on March 23, 2001 at 23:04:00:
It appears that you have taken my post as a personal attack and for that I am sorry. It was not so intended.
In response to your post:
“As near as I can follow, what is being discussed is park managers, one of whom called the original
poster Jacque, who then drove over and paid “her” (park manager?) $150 plus 2 months past due
lot rent for a mobile home.”
Having been in many similar scenarios as Jacque describes, I perhaps read more into the post than others, not having such an experience, would have. When Jacque said she paid $150 for the home, I knew that she meant she paid the owners of the home, not the park manager, $150 for the home.
What I was trying to point out was that this was a purchase, not a repossession.
“Tony-VA posted that “She (Jacque?) did not repossess it, she bought it.” OK, without getting into how Tony-VA (Virginia?) knows exactly what Jacque-WA (Washington?) is doing, I don’t see anyone claiming that a mobile home was purchased for $150 due to a tip from a park manager that one of the mobile home owners was two month behind on space rent.”
Yes, although I am from Virginia, I did understand what Jacque from Washington was posting because we both studied under the same master, Lonnie Scruggs.
" And, I don’t think a park manager or owner wants the negative publicity and legal entanglements that could easily arise from a story of someone being encouraged by the park manager to sell (more like give away) their mobile home worth $2500 for $150, esp. if the owner is low income, minority, elderly, etc."
You will find that park managers and owners have one concern. That is performing assets. A lot rent that has fallen behind for two months is not a performing asset. The chances that these people are going to be able to make 3 months worth of payments next month are slim to none. The parks only alternative is to evict them and file a judgment against them. This harms the homeowner’s credit and helps the park owner/manager very little. Once these people are evicted, the park now has a home occupying their lot with no one paying on it or living in the home. This is an even larger problem for the park. They must now find a solution to this problem. Do they wait and spend the money to obtain legal possession of a home they never wanted, that will likely require repairs and marketing expenses?
Lonnie dealers provide a service by providing a solution. By purchasing this home from the owner at whatever price they can negotiate, and keeping the lot rent current, they have provided the park with a performing asset (all they ever wanted to begin with).
Can Lonnie dealers buy homes for $150 plus back lot rent? Absolutely. Can all of them? Only if they negotiate! Most Lonnie dealers can tell you a similar story about a FREE home they did a deal with, or homes they paid a few hundred dollars for. Circumstance may dictate that you are the only alternative and the best answer to a bad situation. Motivated seller want to cut their losses. We offer that opportunity.
I am not certain how you determined she was “encouraged by the park manager to sell (more like give away) their mobile home worth $2500 for $150, esp. if the owner is low income, minority, elderly, etc.”
This is NOT an issue of discrimination. This is an issue of solving a financial nightmare for the home owner and the park. I submit to you that the value of this home was a matter of prospective, not a pre-determined $2,500. To some it is worth less, to us it is worth much more. Had these owners advertised this home for sale 2 months ago, when this problem started, they might have sold it for $2,500. They remained in a state of denial and now have to cut their losses. They were the ones to decide NOT to pay the lot rent. They were the one who decide that Jacques offer of $150 plus the back lot rent is a good deal. I also submit to you that a Lonnie dealer will market that home for several thousand dollars more than $2,500. Why? How? Because we had the cash to solve the problem. We also had the knowledge of how to resell this home, by taking small payments over the course of many months instead of the higher “All Cash” sale that most of this market cannot afford. We solved a problem for the seller, the park and the buyer and we received just compensation, for without us, none of this would have occurred. Instead of Win/Win/Win it would have been Loose/Loose/Loose.
I believe that if you study Lonnie’s material, and re-read my posts, you will realize that they were not a personal affront, but rather a comment on a great job, and a great deal.