Posted by David on September 07, 2003 at 11:10:52:
I understand that if the deal were a lease option, or a land contract, then the seller’s bank would add the debt and the rent income to the seller’s debt/equity ratio. And sellers should prefer that, anyway, since in a leasse option or land contract, I would imagine they keep the tax deduction on the property. The deal here, though , is a subject to deal. Wouldn’t a bank consider it fraudulent if they were given a land contract, when title had already passed on the seller’s property? Please someone tell me I’m missing something.