Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by Tom-FL
Posted by Tom-FL on February 08, 2004 at 04:32:36:
He said he bought it “Contract For Deed”.
Re: “Shocks the conscience of the court” - Posted by Pat
Posted by Pat on February 09, 2004 at 17:12:54:
It sounds to me like you got nailed by a variation of the mandatory redemption period that accompanies foreclosures. The Feds have a minimum period but each state can set it’s own beyond that minimum (here it’s 90 days after the judgement is rendered). If as you say it’s a pre foreclosure, then it probably didn’t go to judgement which put you on shakey ground to begin with. Until the judgement is rendered and the redemption period is up the seller can come back and reinstate payment and take the place out from under you. It sounds like you gave him the ammunition to do it with.Given all the hype attatched ot the “preforeclosure” market by the “gurus” we can probably expect to hear of a lot more of these unfortunate situations.
Wish you well.
Sleazy Sellers - Posted by Hank FL
Posted by Hank FL on February 09, 2004 at 12:53:10:
From my point of view, these sellers are unethical.
I hope the judge agrees and throws this out.
Keep us posted.
Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by Brent_IL
Posted by Brent_IL on February 08, 2004 at 15:32:15:
Additional disclosure requirements are something else to watch out for and to eliminate as part of the negotiations. I’ve talked with Series 7 guys who are required to give every potential client a 15-page disclosure of their prior activities that came about as the direct result of simply working at a firm that had allegedly done something inappropriate. The quest for new clients is an uphill struggle for them. You don?t have to actually lose to lose.
Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by Jim Fox
Posted by Jim Fox on February 08, 2004 at 10:13:25:
You asked, I answered; you are obviously a know-it-all so I’ll leave you for the sharks!
Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by Tom-FL
Posted by Tom-FL on February 08, 2004 at 21:04:52:
Well, jails are full of people who never agreed to play by the rules. If you are summoned to a appear before a judge and you don’t show up, they can and will make your life miserable. I see you quoted the letter as saying they would “proscecute you civilly”. I don’t know what that means. Proscecution is normally done in criminal court. The part about license suspension is undoubtedly boiler plate that goes in all their letters. If you toss the letter and they don’t hear from you, they may decide to procecute criminally rather than civilly. Ordinarily, no-shows always lose.
Allow me to quote the Florida Statutes before you decide to ignore this:
475.42 Violations and penalties.–
(1) VIOLATIONS.–
(a) No person shall operate as a broker or salesperson without being the holder of a valid and current active license therefor.
(2) PENALTIES.–Any person who violates any of the provisions of subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, or, if a corporation, it is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.083, except when a different punishment is prescribed by this chapter.
775.082 Penalties
(4) A person who has been convicted of a designated misdemeanor may be sentenced as follows:
(b) For a misdemeanor of the second degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 60 days.
775.083 Fines.–
(e) $500, when the conviction is of a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation.
Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by John (LV)
Posted by John (LV) on February 08, 2004 at 09:17:35:
Thank you Tom, but that was a rhetorical question.
He wouldn?t be having this problem if he had actually bought the house ?Subject to? (also like he said) and not on a CFD.
John (LV)
Re: “Shocks the conscience of the court” - Posted by steve smith
Posted by steve smith on February 09, 2004 at 17:25:04:
You may want to go back and read the original post to see what the conversations were about. Your response has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Thanks anyways!!
Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by steve smith
Posted by steve smith on February 08, 2004 at 13:38:12:
Oh no…don’t leave me. All joking aside, I was not trying to be rude or a “know-it-all”. My question was simply do you have personal experience in this matter or are you a real estate attorney? Your response sounded very matter of fact and I am just trying to get an idea of what experience you have that allows you to speak so factually…with all due respect! No rudeness intended, just trying to make an educated decision on how seriously I should consider your advice.
Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by steve smith
Posted by steve smith on February 08, 2004 at 21:28:54:
Tom,
-
It would be nice if you made sure the information you are providing was correct prior to making a statement implying that someone could end up in jail. The information you copied and pasted is actually outdated and the penalties have changed.
-
In response to your comment about jails being full of people not agreeing to play by the rules, let me correct you. Jails are full of people not agreeing to play by the LAWS, which is a HUGE difference!
-
In response to not understanding what I mean by prosecute civilly, let me explain. Here is the definition per the dictionary of the word prosecute:
Law.
1.To initiate civil or criminal court action against.
2.To seek to obtain or enforce by legal action.
I would assume you understand the civil part?
-
I was not summoned to appear before a judge, nor did I ever indicate I was.
-
As previously stated, I do not plan to ignore this letter.
Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by Tom-FL
Posted by Tom-FL on February 08, 2004 at 22:01:40:
– Thank you Tom, but that was a rhetorical question. –
Oops!
– He wouldn?t be having this problem if he had actually bought the house ?Subject to? (also like he said) and not on a CFD. –
Absolutely.
John (LV), Huh? - Posted by eric
Posted by eric on February 08, 2004 at 10:11:17:
A contract for deed is a subject-to transaction. CD amount goes on line 203 and 503 on HUD-1 respectively.
Question here is whether the original owner signed over the deed to him or not. Chances are he probably didn’t since a CD means deed after contract is fullfilled.
Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by steve smith
Posted by steve smith on February 08, 2004 at 09:51:57:
Hmmn…question did NOT sound rhetorical. Anyways, oddly enough I did get the deed as previously stated. It was 2 years ago and the 2nd r.e. transaction I ever did. I was very new and had them sign a contract for deed along with signing the deed over. Pointless to do the contract for deed, but at the time did not realize that.
Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by Tom-FL
Posted by Tom-FL on February 08, 2004 at 21:57:24:
Okay
-
- It would be nice if you made sure the information you are providing was correct prior to making a statement implying that someone could end up in jail. The information you copied and pasted is actually outdated and the penalties have changed. -
That is from the 2003 Florida Statutes. There are no 2004 Florida Statutes yet. Just what has changed so dramatically in five weeks? If you have documentation that the 2003 stautes have been repealed, then please post your link.
-
- In response to your comment about jails being full of people not agreeing to play by the rules, let me correct you. Jails are full of people not agreeing to play by the LAWS, which is a HUGE difference! -
The 2003 Florida Statutes ARE laws.
-
- I was not summoned to appear before a judge, nor did I ever indicate I was. -
Yes you did: “Here is the definition per the dictionary of the word prosecute:
Law.
1.To initiate civil or criminal court action against.”
If you are being “proscecuted”, you WILL be required to answer in court. They don’t do phone, mail, or internet prosecutions. To not have to go to court, you would have to have them NOT prosecute.
Re: John (LV), Huh? - Posted by Brent_IL
Posted by Brent_IL on February 08, 2004 at 12:55:26:
In a subject-to transaction we are agreeing to make the payments of the underlying loan on behalf of the seller. In a CFD, we agree to make payments to the seller.
Re: John (LV), Huh? - Posted by John (LV)
Posted by John (LV) on February 08, 2004 at 11:01:35:
In a ?Subject to? transaction the deed showing the ownership of the property is transferred to the buyer immediately and should be recorded to reflect the transfer of the property to the new buyer.
In a ?Contract for Deed? transaction, which is an installment type contract, the deed showing the ownership of the property is transferred to the buyer upon completion of the terms of the contract. The legal title remains with the seller until the buyer completes that contract. The buyer may have an equitable interest during that contract period.
?Subject to ? is a great way to buy since you get the deed immediately and CFD is a great way to sell as you maintain control of the deal.
I see by the subsequent posts of Steve that there was a deed transferring the ownership and a CFD. As far as I see it, Steve was the owner of the property and being a principal in the transaction was acting for himself and not as an agent.
John (LV)
What’s the sellers “plan B” ? - Posted by Hank FL
Posted by Hank FL on February 09, 2004 at 21:33:14:
It looks like this will go nowhere against you.
When the sellers find that out, will they try something else?
That’s what I’d be thinking about.
Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by Barry (FL)
Posted by Barry (FL) on February 08, 2004 at 10:36:23:
If buying sub 2 the only reason to do a CFD is so that the former owners can show a financial institution that the loan, that is still in there name, is being taken care of by the CFD so that they can get a new loan for another property. Most lenders will give 100% credit for CFD as opposed to 75% for a rental.
Hope This Helps,
Barry (FL)
Re: unlicesened agent question - Posted by steve smith
Posted by steve smith on February 09, 2004 at 09:54:41:
Tom,
-
The rules have in fact changed. They have not changed for the better in this case though.
-
After consulting with my real estate attorney this morning, I have been informed that the statute you copied and pasted refers to people who have been licensed and have lost there license due to non compliance. They then continue to operate w/o a license. It also applies to individuals advertising themselves as real estate agents through billboards, storefront etc. None of which is even remotely applicable in this case.
-
In response to not prosecuting via mail, that is obvious. It appears the person writing the letter uses that wording to inflict fear into the recipient. The paperwork never mentions court, just an administrative type hearing in front of a board…which I am not a part of.
-
Per the paperwork I received via MAIL I am not required to appear. I can check 2 boxes, one is to appear and dispute validity of claim and the other is to not appear and accept fines.
-
It is against the law to not use your blinker when making a turn while driving, but that does not mean you are going to go to jail for it…nor would I imply to someone that they will end up in jail for doing so.
Re: What’s the sellers “plan B” ? - Posted by steve smith
Posted by steve smith on February 11, 2004 at 09:45:15:
They are borke, so unless they know how to get legal aid and can do so, I am not concerned. Even then, they continuosly interfered with my contract and the buyers. I am not to concerned about a plan B at this point.