Posted by Joe C. (AR) on May 09, 2002 at 23:32:07:
The problem with what you are suggesting, as I understand it, is that to record the deed that you receive into anything except a land trust WILL trigger the due on sale clause in most circumstances.
If you can’t record the deed, then the property is at risk of liens created by the owner of record.
If you don’t want to use the land trust, then a lease/option or possibly a land contract would be a better route.
Just my .02
Joe C. (AR)
subject to without the land trust assignment - Posted by Paula
Posted by Paula on May 09, 2002 at 18:56:12:
I understand the reasoning behind using the land trust for privacy and anonymity.
But is anyone out there doing subject to’s without using the land trust for avoiding the due on sale clause,
i.e.,
taking property subject to in their own name or company’s name
OR
taking property subject to and deeding it in the name of their trust directly and bypassing the seller using benificiary assignment.
Re: subject to without the land trust assignment - Posted by DavidV
Posted by DavidV on May 10, 2002 at 22:48:18:
I know people (including a real estate lawyer) that have deeded the property in their names, but it was strictly for immediate resale. I wouldn’t suggest it. All the very knowlegable people that i am familiar with use land trusts.
I don’t use the assignment of beneficial interest. The trust is created with my LLC as beneficial interest holder right off the bat.