Posted by lukeNC on November 25, 2008 at 09:35:35:
i actually had something like that some years ago. The owner filed bk, but there was some title issue. I offered to take over the property from him, but after we figured out what was going on, he wanted the benefits.
He ended up renting the home for 2 years, banking $800 per month on a house that would have easily rented for $1700 or more. The tenants were aware of the title issue and that it would likely be years before it was taken care of. They happily paid the steeply discounted rent to live in such a nice house.
The bank actually didnt begin foreclosing until a few months ago. I sold it for him via short sale and made a few bucks myself.
Back in 1999, I purchased several properties from uscrupulous investors. I was green and didn’t know what I was getting in to. However now after having recovered from bankruptcy, three of the properties are still listed in my name on public record. I did include them in my bankruptcy at the time in 2003. My question is do I still own them and can I repair and rent them out to section 8? I haven’t paid any taxes or anything on them. I wonder where and how to begin. Any help would be appreciated.
Posted by lukeNC on November 24, 2008 at 07:46:20:
if you think the properties are still in your name, you should do a quick title search and find out.
Its likely that the properties were foreclosed on and sold to new owners. Sometimes the public tax record does not show the correct owner. They just havent updated it on the public tax records, unusual…but I’ve seen it many times.
If it turns out the homes have not been foreclosed on and you havent made any payments on them…who knows whats going on! I’d rent them out on a month to month basis until some thing happens and keep all the rent money…
Re: Properties still in my name…Help - Posted by michaela-CA
Posted by michaela-CA on November 23, 2008 at 18:21:27:
kevin,
This might be similar:
I bought some properties a few years ago from the original officers of a bankrupt mortgage company. They filed for bankruptcy in 94 and the bankruptcy was finished in '02. Several properties were not dealt with in the bankruptcy and the file was closed.
At that time the ownership reverted back to the original owner - the mortgage company/the officers.
It does happen, when there’s no equity in the property and the bankruptcy trustee can’t see any way to sell it at a profit.
You want to take a look at your bankruptcy file and see what had been done with these homes by the trustee.
If you have/had mortgages on them, then they’re still subject to those mortgages and possible foreclosure, if they haven’t been.
Have you only seen your name as owner or did you actually do a basic title search, to see if maybe the recorder may have overlooked something.
Hmmmmmm… how would you like to be the tenant that suddenly determines that Kevin didn’t own the property and now receiving an eviction notice from the bank/owner. I wouldn’t suggest that he go about it in this manner or he could have some personal liability for not disclosing this fact to a potential tenant. The action could be considered fraudulent.
As stated, He may or may not own the properties… likely a 50/50 proposition that he still does. It shouldn’t be all that difficult to determine that he still owns them, then he can go about a longer term plan at that time. His biggest problem is going to be if he still owns the properties and the mtg is still in place, and the property is worth less than any encumbrance that survived the Bk proceeding. He will then have to choose whether to attempt to tackle that encumbrance, with an attempt to settle it for far less, and in doing so maybe wake up the lender to the fact that they have an unattended to asset with the mtg… (or the property). Either way there is likely an opportunity that exists, but I would hate to get sideways with a Tenant by not disclosing something that you should, about ownership or a possible foreclosure proceeding, etc.
There should certainly be some tax liens out there, if the state the property is located sells liens… Again, the OP should do as suggested and establish the chain of title…
Posted by John Merchant on November 24, 2008 at 08:50:15:
Suggest you go look at the BK file, either in person at the BK Court Clerk’s office or via www.pacer.gov, a federal site where you can see, read and print any or all docs filed in any recent (last 30 years probably, maybe longer)CH 7 or 13 BK action.
Then a chat with some local Title Co person to see whose name the RE is in now would be in order.
If they’re still in your name, go ahead and occupy those props & install tenants if they’re livable.
I’ve had a weird experience along the same lines…I once had a 1/2 ownership partner who basically locked me out of a property and its income for a period of time. But when I drove by one day to chat with her tenants, I found the house empty and before nightfall had installed my own guy in the house and had changed the door locks so now I cotrolled it…and did so from that day forward despite threatening, bullying letters from my partner’s lawyer and Ocwen who later foreclosed on my 1/2 interest partner.
Then you’d want to talk to the lenders and find where you stood and see if you could refi so as to get better loans installed on those properties.
Re: public record means little… - Posted by lukeNC
Posted by lukeNC on November 24, 2008 at 18:35:07:
thats why i wrote, month to month… and of course you’d let them know about the title issue. Thats why its month to month. And probably a cheaper rent than usual.
I knew that you would disclose the potential risk to the tenant. I wanted to make sure that anyone else reading this, as well as the OP, would grasp the importance of disclosure of the ownership and potential conflict that could exist here.
Again, probably better to determine whether the OP is vested in title or not, before going into any rental agreement. I do think that there is a risk of fraud, potentially civil and criminal, if you are renting out something that you do not truly own…
I make this claim as a result of having some knowledge of a similar case, due to the simple fact that title wasn’t vested to the entity Landlording the property, even though that entity had equitable title via a Land Trust. The claimant is banking on the fact that the details are complex and that an onlooker, judge or jury could side with their claims of fraud. Just because the facts support the position doesn’t keep a counter party from making some outlandish claims, so best to keep it straight forward, and clear cut, IMO.