- Find a Real Estate Professional
- Alabama Realtors®
- Alabama Mortgage Lenders
- Alabama Home Improvement Pros
- Alabama Other Real Estate Services
- Review an Agent, Lender or Pro
- Marketing on Zillow
- Real Estate Agent Advertising
- Join the Professional Directory
- More
Best Answer
- SoCal_Engr
- Contributions:5670
@ Sunnyview...
But, but, but...that's not what they said at the seminar...a $500 value but only $250 for the first 50 to register.
I'll be helping the owner to not lose their home, even though they'll end up without their name on title but still on the mortgage. And, I could tap the equity to start buing more properties and build my RE empire - the first steps to wealth building in my spare time. Woot, woot!
You're a damp, clammy washcloth. :-p
But, but, but...that's not what they said at the seminar...a $500 value but only $250 for the first 50 to register.
I'll be helping the owner to not lose their home, even though they'll end up without their name on title but still on the mortgage. And, I could tap the equity to start buing more properties and build my RE empire - the first steps to wealth building in my spare time. Woot, woot!
You're a damp, clammy washcloth. :-p
- MarKus McClellan, "MarKusGroup"
- Contributions:106
Why would someone want to contact the seller directly, when they can have a qualified buyer agent working on their behalf, who only gets paid if they successfully perform their duties, and they get paid by the seller? I don't quite get it. I think Buyers just don't understand.
- sunnyview
- Contributions:25139
Life is short, so now you can read the cliff notes before you reply.
Summary: This poster wanted to go around the agent to the owner cut out their commission to execute some late night infomercial wrap scheme. Thought that anyone who pointed out that was not right was bad.
Summary: This poster wanted to go around the agent to the owner cut out their commission to execute some late night infomercial wrap scheme. Thought that anyone who pointed out that was not right was bad.
- ConnieK_Oklahoma
- Contributions:2900
definitely....read from beginning to end.
- SoCal_Engr
- Contributions:5670
@ the last 3 REAs to post...
You might want to read some of the OP's other posts on this thread. Context is everything.
You might want to read some of the OP's other posts on this thread. Context is everything.
- Maya M. Stepniarek, "Maya1906"
- Contributions:4
It is wrong to contact the seller instead of sellers agent period. The seller hired his agent to do the job for him and help him sell the house. You most likely found that house because sellers agent put some work to advertise it.
Some people dont feel comfortable to have one agent representing both parties (dual agency), so if this is the case get another agent to represent you.
Some people dont feel comfortable to have one agent representing both parties (dual agency), so if this is the case get another agent to represent you.
- Bobbie Shute, "BobbieShute4"
- Contributions:5
If an agent has the home listed, it is always better to contact the agent. The agent has all the necessary information to help you and in addition has a contract with the seller to represent them in the sale of their home. It would be highly inappropriate to try to go around the agent to try to get a better deal. If you are concerned about the rules concerning dual agency and you feel you would like single representation, then by all means interview several buyer's agents and choose one to help you that can represent your best interests in the purchase of any home.
- Vanessa Rojas, "VanessaRojas1"
- Contributions:56
You will be better off if you contact the seller's agent. Seller's agent fully represents the seller and will be able to help you answer your questions and clear any concerns you may have rather than the seller.
- sunnyview
- Contributions:25139
Sadly, there is no safety net for those owners. The information presented by the shark may sound good when you are up against the wall and financially hungry. That's why I don't like it.
People should be able to get solid information on Zillow. If that means calling a scam out for what it is, then so be it.
People should be able to get solid information on Zillow. If that means calling a scam out for what it is, then so be it.
- northwest
- Contributions:215
"But any seller that transfers title to him and trusts him to make the mortgage payments is a complete fool, worse than the people that paid 3 times what a property was worth during the bubble."
Of course you are right on all counts. Sad thing though, desparation can render the smartest to do foolish things. Example: paid off house but no money for taxes (so tax liens), no $ for upkeep, utilities, food, healthcare, etc... That's when a scumbag shark can come in as a "rescuing angel" and seduce the vulnerable owner into signing away. Hope there is a consumer safety net for this, but kind of doubt it.
Of course you are right on all counts. Sad thing though, desparation can render the smartest to do foolish things. Example: paid off house but no money for taxes (so tax liens), no $ for upkeep, utilities, food, healthcare, etc... That's when a scumbag shark can come in as a "rescuing angel" and seduce the vulnerable owner into signing away. Hope there is a consumer safety net for this, but kind of doubt it.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21466
Dave -
The other issue the linked article brought up is the excessive market saturation of foreclosures presently, thus, as long as the full payments are being made, the lender is likely to delay doing anything about the "due on sale" clause.
This "buying" without funds and "reselling" by just transferring title and taking over payments may just be a way a REA that lost their broker is continuing to sell Real Estate...
And as long as he stays under the maximum amount of transactions allowed for an owner per year, he may get away with it.
But any seller that transfers title to him and trusts him to make the mortgage payments is a complete fool, worse than the people that paid 3 times what a property was worth during the bubble.
There is absolutely no benefit of any kind for a seller to do such things in a non-recourse state. All sellers have much better options. And most buyers have better options too considering the list prices are lower that the mortgage amounts, and the presently offered interest rates are much lower than existing rates for people that are unable to refinance.
And since many loans are "assumable" I asked some lenders why more people don't do that. First, the buyer needs to qualify to assume the loan (which the original poster states they don't care if anyone is qualified to buy as long as they state they are willing to...), and if they do qualify, why would they want to assume terms that are worse than are presently offered? Second, as the loan is paid down, the loan to value ratio diminishes, thus many people would not be able to afford the equity difference between the loan and purchase amount without taking out a new loan anyway...
So, the only person it helps out is the scamming middle man; but the FBI and District Attorney have both made it clear they will prosecute such scams.
The other issue the linked article brought up is the excessive market saturation of foreclosures presently, thus, as long as the full payments are being made, the lender is likely to delay doing anything about the "due on sale" clause.
This "buying" without funds and "reselling" by just transferring title and taking over payments may just be a way a REA that lost their broker is continuing to sell Real Estate...
And as long as he stays under the maximum amount of transactions allowed for an owner per year, he may get away with it.
But any seller that transfers title to him and trusts him to make the mortgage payments is a complete fool, worse than the people that paid 3 times what a property was worth during the bubble.
There is absolutely no benefit of any kind for a seller to do such things in a non-recourse state. All sellers have much better options. And most buyers have better options too considering the list prices are lower that the mortgage amounts, and the presently offered interest rates are much lower than existing rates for people that are unable to refinance.
And since many loans are "assumable" I asked some lenders why more people don't do that. First, the buyer needs to qualify to assume the loan (which the original poster states they don't care if anyone is qualified to buy as long as they state they are willing to...), and if they do qualify, why would they want to assume terms that are worse than are presently offered? Second, as the loan is paid down, the loan to value ratio diminishes, thus many people would not be able to afford the equity difference between the loan and purchase amount without taking out a new loan anyway...
So, the only person it helps out is the scamming middle man; but the FBI and District Attorney have both made it clear they will prosecute such scams.
- Michael Emery, "MikeEmery"
- Contributions:7298
I've heard of the practice of assuming the payments while not assuming the underlying mortgage.
It's called 'equity skimming'. This was a trick when homes had equity but the owners were too destitute to keep up payments or were unable to sell to capture the equity.
The person who assumed the payments would often lease back the home to the homeowners - sometimes for more than the underlying mortgage payment. Or they would assume the mortgage with the homeowners now making payments to the 'buyer'
Unfortunately many homeowners discovered their 'rent' payments weren't going to the bank. Instead the 'buyer' would pocket the money until the bank foreclosed on the home. Or the 'buyer' would assume title, the homeowner would fall behind in their payments and they would be evicted - thus losing any equity they had in the home.
And yes, even if the homeowner were to directly sell to a buyer (and thereby circumventing the agent) the homeowner is legally liable to pay their agent the agreed upon rate of commission - whether or not the agent participated in the transaction.
It's called 'equity skimming'. This was a trick when homes had equity but the owners were too destitute to keep up payments or were unable to sell to capture the equity.
The person who assumed the payments would often lease back the home to the homeowners - sometimes for more than the underlying mortgage payment. Or they would assume the mortgage with the homeowners now making payments to the 'buyer'
Unfortunately many homeowners discovered their 'rent' payments weren't going to the bank. Instead the 'buyer' would pocket the money until the bank foreclosed on the home. Or the 'buyer' would assume title, the homeowner would fall behind in their payments and they would be evicted - thus losing any equity they had in the home.
And yes, even if the homeowner were to directly sell to a buyer (and thereby circumventing the agent) the homeowner is legally liable to pay their agent the agreed upon rate of commission - whether or not the agent participated in the transaction.
- Carlos E Lozano, "carloslozano"
- Contributions:17
Absolutly, first of all, the seller have an agreement with his agent's broker firm, to deal with the subject property in his behalf. You or your agent need to contact the listing agent in order to have any information or make any offer. Thank you.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21466
Dave -
You missed Professor Brown's link on how it is often done without triggering the "due on sale" clause that was posted on another thread. Think "estate planning".... (Bill Bronchick).
Obviously the original poster has never done what he was told to do in the Seminar he paid for as he missed this very important detail, since once his name is on the title, the lender finds out and will insist on payment in full, and will foreclose if it is not paid.
From people I know that were swindled by those involved with the PSI seminars, their gimmick was only having a 1/10 ownership transfer instead. Still a big mess and my friends lost their properties (both), and one of them ended up in a coma from all the stress. (And they cannot say I didn't warn them... one of them specifically asked how I knew..., even though I tried to explain that to them up front before it happened).
You missed Professor Brown's link on how it is often done without triggering the "due on sale" clause that was posted on another thread. Think "estate planning".... (Bill Bronchick).
Obviously the original poster has never done what he was told to do in the Seminar he paid for as he missed this very important detail, since once his name is on the title, the lender finds out and will insist on payment in full, and will foreclose if it is not paid.
From people I know that were swindled by those involved with the PSI seminars, their gimmick was only having a 1/10 ownership transfer instead. Still a big mess and my friends lost their properties (both), and one of them ended up in a coma from all the stress. (And they cannot say I didn't warn them... one of them specifically asked how I knew..., even though I tried to explain that to them up front before it happened).
- sunnyview
- Contributions:25139
Dave you understand all too well. You say it doesn't make sense because you live in the real world where sellers want protection during a sale and banks follow their modern mortgage contract that do not allow wraps.
@Mr.longbeach you say it works for you, but I'm not sure that works for me. Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with you not being straightforward with people on Zillow. You count on people accepting your representations. I rely on people being smart enough to weigh the risks not just swallow the sugar coating
@Mr.longbeach you say it works for you, but I'm not sure that works for me. Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with you not being straightforward with people on Zillow. You count on people accepting your representations. I rely on people being smart enough to weigh the risks not just swallow the sugar coating
- Dave Bond, "DaveBondRealtor"
- Contributions:18
You can't take someone's name off of title and leave them on the loan. Banks have acceleration clauses. Maybe I'm misunderstood, but that doesn't make sense.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21466
Considering the other thread the original poster started regarding his "scheme", I absolutely do not believe the person has ever bought any real estate of any kind nor do I believe the person is on the title of any real estate property.
As for what I would do if such a person called me? I would state the property is already listed, and that if they want to make an offer, they need to put it in writing, and then I would hang up on them. If they call back, I would state I already told them not to call, and hang up on them again. Court may eventually be an option if they don't get the picture.
As for what I would do if such a person called me? I would state the property is already listed, and that if they want to make an offer, they need to put it in writing, and then I would hang up on them. If they call back, I would state I already told them not to call, and hang up on them again. Court may eventually be an option if they don't get the picture.
- PukonYukon
- Contributions:173
Predatory is an accurate statement but no just predatory for the sellers, for the buyers too. Capitalism at it's finest.
- mr.longbeach
- Contributions:32
Connie: I understand what you are say regarding the debt the owner still has but when I find a new buyer , they are eventually going to refinance their house to get a lower interest rate than what I offer in owners financing . So when they refinance they get a new loan and pay off the previous owners loan . But this whole time the new buyer has a house that he couldnt qualify until he met me. Sunnyview: if what I do doesn't float your boat then it doesn't , I works for me thats all that matters . All my clients are happy they met me for this solution. I have not had any complains what so ever. I rest my case
- Ofe Polack, "Ofe Polack"
- Contributions:1420
You posed a very simple question. The answer to that question is Yes, it would be wrong to contact the seller directly. If the seller wanted direct contact he would have gone the FSBO way. He hired a listing agent to address all offers. In the event that the property has an assumable mortgage, you may be able to purchase it. If I were you, I would do the right thing and approach the Listing Agent with an offer to assume the mortgage, in the event that you qualify for it and it is assumable.The best of luck!
- sunnyview
- Contributions:25139
"Right?"
No, not right. Sellers don't need you if they want to take that kind of risk with a defaulting buyer. They can find unqualified, defaulting buyers on their own and do not need to tie themselves to your parade of would be homeowners while they carry the paper on their credit.
Your American dream is obviously not the same as mine. My American dream is about responsibility, working hard for what you want and assuming the risk or reward or failure on your own merits not at the expense of others.
No, not right. Sellers don't need you if they want to take that kind of risk with a defaulting buyer. They can find unqualified, defaulting buyers on their own and do not need to tie themselves to your parade of would be homeowners while they carry the paper on their credit.
Your American dream is obviously not the same as mine. My American dream is about responsibility, working hard for what you want and assuming the risk or reward or failure on your own merits not at the expense of others.
- ConnieK_Oklahoma
- Contributions:2900
I see it as Predatory.- that's the problem. It doesn't matter if your intentions are good. the target customer for you is someone that is already in a bind, someone that has already made bad decisions. someone that is likely to repeat a risky decision based upon eternal optimism of a rescue without really considering the risk. even if you never default. they have that debt hanging over their head keeping them from being able to buy something else and overcoming that problem just became far more complicated for them as you know hold the deed. There is a great deal for this person to consider and they are most likely to make a uninformed decision. I can see you could be very successful at accomplishing these sales and a few will have no regrets- but that doesn't make it a good decision.
- mr.longbeach
- Contributions:32
Sunny view : I don't tie down the new buyer if he doesn't pay the mortgage I have a lien against the house by using the deed of trust and I would foreclose on him . Then start and look for another buyer that has been denied by a bank . With owners financing , the new buyer is giving me a down payment non refundable in which tells me that he can afford the property. Everything disclosed . What if that new buyer made mistake in the passed by not paying bill or what not. And now he's settled and wants the American dream and byba house but is denied because of his actions in the past years. I give those people a chance to buy a house . Right??
- sunnyview
- Contributions:25139
Your business is your business, but owners or buyers need to know the risk they assume by doing it your way. In the 1980's I saw for myself the way this system works in practice.
The real rub is that this ain't my first scam rodeo, so I'm not buying that lame wrapped mare in the sales corral just because you shined her up and are bringing her around for another go at the bidding gallery. I'll pass pardner.
The real rub is that this ain't my first scam rodeo, so I'm not buying that lame wrapped mare in the sales corral just because you shined her up and are bringing her around for another go at the bidding gallery. I'll pass pardner.
- sunnyview
- Contributions:25139
"There might be a risk for the only if I don't continue paying his mortgage but I got that covered with my selling plan were I find a buyer who's been denied by a home loan ."
That is the risk in a nutshell. You take a buyer that is unqualified for a bank loan often due to damaged credit or financial irresponsibility and tie them to a desperate seller who has their credit on the line while you risk nothing and profit from their ignorance.
What does the owner get out of it? Massive credit risk, a loss of control of their property that they are still financially responsible for, a risk for damages that they have no way to recoup and the inability to buy another house as long as the original mortgage shows up in their name.
That is the risk in a nutshell. You take a buyer that is unqualified for a bank loan often due to damaged credit or financial irresponsibility and tie them to a desperate seller who has their credit on the line while you risk nothing and profit from their ignorance.
What does the owner get out of it? Massive credit risk, a loss of control of their property that they are still financially responsible for, a risk for damages that they have no way to recoup and the inability to buy another house as long as the original mortgage shows up in their name.
- mr.longbeach
- Contributions:32
Socal: nothing just wanted to ask that's all. I'm here on the forum to meet new people especially if they are in socal.
- mr.longbeach
- Contributions:32
I understand why many people have their guard up because many people may have done similar methods just like mine , but it's because they take over deed and never pay the mortgage , leaving the homeowner liable for everything . In my case I'm not I'm making the payments , selling the house to a buyer that been denied for a home loan because their credit is shot or they don't have the large downpayment to put down.
- mr.longbeach
- Contributions:32
Sunny view: how am I doing people wrong , I find homeowners that can't sell there house, I prevent them from foreclosure because I continue their payments , and if they are in foreclosure I would pay for their default amount and reinstate their loan. I take over the deed of the house , recorded it at my local recorders office , find a buyer using owners financing or lease option that has been denied by the bank for a home loan and put them in a house that they want. I'm helping both sides of the market . Everything is disclosed to the owner before he signs anything. There might be a risk for the only if I don't continue paying his mortgage but I got that covered with my selling plan were I find a buyer who's been denied by a home loan . I don't understand why people are against this method. It was used in the 80s when interest rates were at 18% to sell houses. I have a clause in my contract basically saying that if I don't miss a payment the deed automatically returns to original owner. EASY
- ConnieK_Oklahoma
- Contributions:2900
i forgot to add (not that it's important) that the property is still leased. the tenants were able to prove that they have been paying rent and FNMA has allowed them to stay. the property is a duplex and the amount of rent collected would MORE than cover a mortgage payment on that size of loan. also the mortgage was $20k less than the original purchase but there's no record of that equity being purchased in the transfer.
it's not that the investor was not getting the rent and unable to pay the mortgage. It's really a bizarre co-incidence that this happened on the same day of this thread so it feels wrong not to share it. I almost never have a buyer ask for this much research. If you're a person that believe in signs...this should be one for the book.
it's not that the investor was not getting the rent and unable to pay the mortgage. It's really a bizarre co-incidence that this happened on the same day of this thread so it feels wrong not to share it. I almost never have a buyer ask for this much research. If you're a person that believe in signs...this should be one for the book.
- ConnieK_Oklahoma
- Contributions:2900
just by freak co-incidence I was asked to do a CMA on a foreclosed property yesterday. Here's what I found out- the property was mortgaged in 2004, then in 2006 there was a transfer of the deed (not the mortgage) the property was rented and it was set up with some RE business for the lease to pay the mortgage. but no "sale" was recorded on county records it simply shows a quit claim deed from individuals to a company which is based in Las Vegas.
It was foreclosed upon and the foreclosure shows to be against the people with the original mortgage in 2004.
I bet those "sellers" were excited when they signed the deal too.
that's why forums like these are so valuable- Consumer advocates who are NOT industry professionals can speak up and call a duck a duck. It has more credibility when those with nothing to gain can speak up. You might attach an REA for calling it a scam saying we're greedy or want the money or whatever - that doesn't make it less a scam. It might not be a "scam" under perfect circumstances- but it's a HUGE risk that NO one should go into uninformed.
It was foreclosed upon and the foreclosure shows to be against the people with the original mortgage in 2004.
I bet those "sellers" were excited when they signed the deal too.
that's why forums like these are so valuable- Consumer advocates who are NOT industry professionals can speak up and call a duck a duck. It has more credibility when those with nothing to gain can speak up. You might attach an REA for calling it a scam saying we're greedy or want the money or whatever - that doesn't make it less a scam. It might not be a "scam" under perfect circumstances- but it's a HUGE risk that NO one should go into uninformed.
would it be wrong if i tried to contact the seller instead of the agent?
Stating a discriminatory preference in an advertisement for housing is illegal. If you think this content is discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate and feel it should be removed from Zillow, please let us know by completing the information above.
We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.