Is if you stopped to understand the dynamics of this situation, instead of passing judgment… “oh that’s rich”… thing.
What is a fact is these sellers, like so many of the sellers that we each run into… are first and foremost “in trouble” before we came along. The fact that an investor, as I’m sure Ron Starr did in this instance, attempts to salvage a Seller and their credit, does not mean that it will be successful 100% of the time. “Even the best heart surgeon lose patients”… because they are sick to begin with!!!
So, in the nicest way that I can say this… Lighten up on the judgment crap…!
It is far better to have tried and failed than to have done nothing at all… and the investor did not fall short, the circumstances did.
It would probably depend on the exact circumstances of the property, etc. However for the mostpart you have violated the DOS clause whether it’s PACTrust, subject to, etc. so you would be throwing good money after bad. Unless you think you can really win, it would be a waste of time and money. There have already been lots of court cases that have been unsuccessfully defended and that would be the precedents you would have to deal with.
It never ceases to amaze me, that I find homes just weeks away from a foreclosure/sheriff sale, the homeowner has failed to mention anything about this to the Realtor, and the Agent has absolutely NO idea… When I have discussed possible remedies with some Agents, their forst question is… what about my commission…? Soemwhere down the line the topic of “what can I do to help the homeowner”… comes up.
Of ocurse this information if all public record and there for an Agent to see, but for the most part, the haven’t a clue of how to access such a thing, as well what a foreclosure really means.
Sometimes my neck gets just plain sore from shaking my head in disbelief…
Posted by Nate(DC) on December 29, 2002 at 23:08:38:
Furthermore, every one of these “situations” that get posted here once or twice a year, including, apparently, Ron’s situation, are ALWAYS MADE WORSE BY THE FORMER OWNER DOING SOMETHING THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE!
Read this again: if the former owner doesn’t screw you, your risk decreases dramatically!!
How are you doing Rob. Not that I want to continue this argument but I thought I would give you some of my views since I do use the Pactrust almost exclusively. I do not use Gatten’s associates to originate or maintain the trusts.
I use it for several reason. One is that I feel safer from claims of equitable interest, Safer from bankruptcies or other law suits. There are court cases that deal with co-beneficiary trusts that do not partition the property but only attach their interest. I also use it because I feel on the higher end houses that I can get more down and more per month than a straight lease/option.
Didn’t you post a court case several years ago in which the judge told the lender pay him back all the money he has paid them an they can have the house back. Gatten has acknowledged that he has many Countrywide loans. He says they are a pain but he has never had one called due. I have no reason to disbelieve him. I only have one Countrywide loan at present. The payments are current, the house has been renovated and it is for sale.
Now, in Texas, we are a non-judicial foreclosure state. As such Countrywide, headquartered here, can demand then accelerate(call the loan due). I would hope that I would have contacted them explaining that the owners do remain a beneficiary. In fact on many the sellers get money when it eventually is sold. Should they presist then I would have my attorney get a TRO to stop the foreclosure as part of a suit for violating Garn St. Germain. I do not know how much help I would get from Gatten’s attorney’s. I would also be working to solve the problem other ways because of the cost of litigation. Depending on circumstances I might continue to litigate but if not the court actions would forestall the foreclosure a good length of time.
I don’t neccesarily buy low equity properties with the Pactrust so I have fair amounts of purchase money and equity to protect.
Posted by JohnBoy on January 02, 2003 at 01:50:44:
Im referring to defending a case involving a PACTrust. There is no case I no of that sets any precedents pertaining to a PACTrust violating a DOSC. All arguments though suggest that a PACTrust does not violate a DOSC. So that would be a case worth defending in my opinion. That would be one case that you might be able to actually win. So the circumstances would have to pertain to a lender calling the loan due on a residential property…one to four units…where title was transferred into a trust using a PACTrust. WILL you win the case? Beats me! But I think it is possible to win and if you did win you would set a precedence to win other cases involving the use of a PACTrust.
As far as subject to, L/O, contract for deed, etc., forget it! Those clearly violate the DOSC. But the verdict is still out on a PACTrust.
Posted by Ben (NJ) on December 28, 2002 at 10:56:53:
once in awhile we foreclose on a property that was listed for sale but didn’t sell. I have to contact the agent and tell him we now own the property so his listing agreement with the former owner is invalid. They are initially shocked but most recover pretty quickly because they invariably ask me to RE-list it with them. Why waste all that hard work and lose a commish, I suppose. LOL