Re: Sedona… - Posted by BAK
Posted by BAK on December 28, 2009 at 16:03:09:
Thanks…This is excellent…I hope they have this in PA…I will check…!! Bruce
Re: Sedona… Bill Gaten - Posted by Jack-E
Posted by Jack-E on January 08, 2010 at 16:41:14:
I would be careful with anything Bill Gaten proports. Read the archives here.
Sedona…EHT - Posted by Joe
Posted by Joe on December 29, 2009 at 09:46:55:
SedonaSam-
So with a EHT the existing mortgage stays in the original owners name and shows on their credit unitl the property is sold or refied?
Also, how is it that a land trust has a better percentage of the leasee buying as compared to say a lease option with a tenant/buyer?
Re: Sedona… - Posted by SedonaSam
Posted by SedonaSam on December 29, 2009 at 06:22:28:
The land trust may be used in all states. In Louisiana, however, which
remains under French law, you can use a trust, but they don’t
recognize the Doctrine of Equitable Conversion which is how you
convert real property to personal property, therefore characterizing
one’s beneficiary interest in a title-holding trust as a lien on the
property. This means that a defaulting resident beneficiary would not
be subject to simple eviction (one of the prime advantages of the EHT)
and would have to be foreclosed upon as would any homeowner of
record. In other words, in other states you own personal property, in
Louisiana you own the real property itself. This also applies in
Tennessee. You are home free on the other states.
Pennsylvania certainly does recognize land trusts. No specific land
trust authority, but functional by the land trust’s exclusion from
prohibitions within trust and land use regulations (See DCCA #45-
1101 and e.g., Kyner v. Hershey, 14 Cumb. 61(Pa Common Pleas
1963); Estate of Evanich, 10 Pa. D&C.3d 226 (1979)
Don’t let anyone dissuade you by telling you that all business trusts in
Pennsylvania must file their Trust Agreements including identification
of Trustees and beneficiaries with the Corporation Bureau of the
Pennsylvania Dept. of State. And the Deed you take in the name of the
Trust is also Public Record. Therefore the Land Trust offers no
protection to the beneficiaries because all the records are public. THIS
DOES NOT APPLY TO LAND TRUSTS WHICH ARE NOT BUSINESS TRUSTS.
There is also a transfer tax in Pennsylvania which can easily be
avoided. Placing your property into a trust is NOT a sale.
The only problem you may encounter in dealing with a land trust is
most people don’t understand them and how they work including
attorneys. Good luck and enjoy your research.
Re: Sedona… Bill Gaten - Posted by SedonaSam
Posted by SedonaSam on January 12, 2010 at 06:32:20:
This is a BS post. You can’t even spell his name correctly. Are you a
gossip monger or do you have something to say. I have worked with
Gatten for two decades now. I have used his EHT system many times
and have my current house in a trust. His documentation and legal
departments have been priceless. Many years and not one single
problem. I have found him to be a man of integrity who keeps his
word. Do you even know him. Have you ever worked with him? Give it
a rest.
Re: Sedona…EHT - Posted by SedonaSam
Posted by SedonaSam on December 29, 2009 at 10:06:05:
Correct on the existing mortgage. As to the higher percentages, it is my
guess that the Tenants who are willing to take responsibility for
maintenance and repairs are more serious about becoming homeowners
and also receive the tax write-off benefits during the lease term.
Re - Posted by BAK
Posted by BAK on December 29, 2009 at 18:03:25:
Many Thanks for your valuable help!!
Re: Sedona…EHT - Posted by Joe
Posted by Joe on December 29, 2009 at 10:35:18:
Good stuff. Thank you!
Re: Don’t - Posted by Nike
Posted by Nike on August 11, 2005 at 17:02:39:
You must be easily amused—and impressed. If he’s talking about securing valid notes/obligations then that’s fine and it’s common practice. If he’s referring to a less common and odious method of asset protection, often hawked by offshore-asset protection companies, that suggest creating straw-notes secured by mortgages with the sole intent of giving the public appearance of no equity and therefore discouraging potential lawsuits then that’s a practice/idea worth challenging. There’s nothing sophisticated about it–it’s merely a grift.
Re: Have to disagree - Posted by JoeS
Posted by JoeS on April 02, 2002 at 21:08:43:
No, it depends on the State and the judge! Here in NY, the judge WILL rule in favor of the plaintiff. It’s been done several times. The judge says that you as the seller are the expert and you pay! But, if you as the seller were not doing this as a full time business then that is different. We are a pro-owner state. In California it may be different.
Re: Have to disagree - Posted by Fran and Tony CA
Posted by Fran and Tony CA on April 02, 2002 at 18:07:32:
We did not try to hide anything. The buyer knew about the house’s condition. In fact, the kitchen cabinets and sink weren’t installed, along with a lot of other interior and exterior items. We still have an open building permit and he was aware that he’d have to do a lot of work to get the city to close it. We gave him a greatly discounted price from our asking price if we were to complete the rehab. He wanted to buy the house at a discount and finish the work himself. He is a licensed landscape contractor and has general contractor contacts.
Tony and Fran
Re: Don’t - Posted by El Guapo
Posted by El Guapo on August 11, 2005 at 17:20:08:
Nike:
“creating straw-notes secured by mortgages with the sole intent of giving the public appearance of no equity and therefore discouraging potential lawsuits then that’s a practice/idea worth challenging.”
What is wrong with trying to discourage a lawsuit? Are you insinuating that it is legally and morally wrong for someone to protect what they’ve legally and morally worked hard for?
Are you insinuating that ALL lawsuits have merit and thus must be allowed to proceed?
Have you ever challenged the legal or valid nature of a Friendly Lien in court?
If so, what was the outcome?
“Less common and odious method of asset protection.” Odious to whom? Certainly not to the hard-working folks who have striven to accumulate assets! Could it be odious to the attorney filing the lawsuit?
HMMMM - Posted by Tim Jensen
Posted by Tim Jensen on April 03, 2002 at 08:54:35:
Joe,
Now that you say you are in New York, I can see why you feel that way. I can see in tghe more liberal states where the judges would bend the law.
Tim
Re: Don’t - Posted by Nike
Posted by Nike on August 11, 2005 at 18:07:58:
Spare me the sophistry. There’s nothing wrong with discouraging lawsuits, however you cannot create phoney legal instruments (mortgages) to do it. Are you advocating creating straw notes/mortgages? We’re not going to agree on this so you can have the last word–it’ll be fun watching you defend this idea and seeing how many lemmings jump-on-board.