Posted by Barry (FL) on June 27, 2003 at 16:18:38:
Why don’t you just sell him your contract for the difference and let him close himself?
Please analyze and crituque - Posted by StellaR
Posted by StellaR on June 27, 2003 at 10:14:41:
Scenario…Seller of vacant house is very close to signing contract. Friend/buyer/rehabber/investor is eager to buy and will fund deal-all cash. Buyer is willing to deposit money to my account to purchase house. I pay for title search, closing costs, etc. and take title in corp name. After deal is completed, transfer title to buyer using quitclaim deed and pocket difference in cash in account. He intends to rehab and resell. Lots of trust here between me and buyer. We use same attorney and his office will conduct title search. This should avoid costs of double closing and also either party knowing a$$ignment fee.
Questions…is this do-able? Is this illegal / unethical? Would I be considered a “straw man” in this instance? How better to structure this? Any adverse tax implications? No closing required to transfer title to buyer, right? Can title still be clean in this instance when buyer/rehabber sells after rehabbing? Am I missing other potential problems or can this be a clean transaction as currently structured? Thx!
Re: Please analyze and crituque - Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA)
Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA) on June 27, 2003 at 20:05:50:
Barry–(FL)-----------------
I don’t see any questions about the legality of such a process. I don’t see any reason to do this at all.
Why is this being set up this way? The buyer is paying all cash, why doesn’t the buyer just get a deed directly from the seller? Why are you in between the seller and buyer?
I have used attorneys to handle the transfer of money and deed for less than a $100 bill. I don’t see why the attorney doesn’t do it here?
Good InvestingRon Starr