How does one circumvent an owner occupied clause on REO's

31 Replies

Sometimes I wonder if posts like these are plants by DAs or AGs. But to give them credit, I think their posts would be more creative and comprehensive.

Don't circumvent an owner occupant clause. Done.

lol....PRISON.....no need to break laws...

I think a lot of people don't realize that loan fraud is a federal offense. Don't write anything on your application that isn't true. Don't exaggerate your income, don't lie about occupancy, don't lie about anything when applying for a loan. The chances of you getting caught are very small but the penalty is prison time. So not worth it.

I'm sure it could be done, but You'll need to be prepared to cut a check to the mortgage holder for the entire mortgage balance within 30 days after You receive that one letter they send out, calling the loan.

Then the next move would be an emergency 30 day close re-fi, and then having to explain to the new bank, why You need to replace the existing mortgage.

It may be time to rethink this plan.

John

Thank you all, not trying to commit a crime or do some time.

Same advise...you don't. But, OP seems to be talking about buying a REO during the OO period, with no intention of occupying.

Originally posted by @Brian Gibbons :
As K. Marie Poe said, obey the law or don't up to u. At ur own peril.

I only buy at foreclosure sales, therefore I need not concern myself with owner occupied clauses related to REO properties. But I take issue with your assertion that it is the law. It is not the law, it is just clause in a contract. A clause which I doubt has ever been enforced through the courts, or ever could be enforced through the courts.

Originally posted by @John Rooster :
Originally posted by @Brian Gibbons :
As K. Marie Poe said, obey the law or don't up to u. At ur own peril.

I only buy at foreclosure sales, therefore I need not concern myself with owner occupied clauses related to REO properties. But I take issue with your assertion that it is the law. It is not the law, it is just clause in a contract. A clause which I doubt has ever been enforced through the courts, or ever could be enforced through the courts.

You're right, but that's not the issue, deceiving or providing false information to any insured lender in connection with any loan or business transaction is a felony. :)

The person listed in that case ended up paying a penalty to get off.

It seems that some people will still try to violate the law if they deem the gain is more than the penalty if caught. This reminds me of the oil spills and illegal dumping in the ocean when I was a kid. These oil companies might save 100 million dumping but only pay 10 million in fines at the time. So by their standards they were profiting 90 million.

It wasn't until the fines were raised so high that most didn't even think about doing it as perceived gain was outweighed by the risk.

I believe most honest people would not want to violate laws for financial gain.

Originally posted by @John Rooster :
Originally posted by @Brian Gibbons :
As K. Marie Poe said, obey the law or don't up to u. At ur own peril.

I only buy at foreclosure sales, therefore I need not concern myself with owner occupied clauses related to REO properties. But I take issue with your assertion that it is the law. It is not the law, it is just clause in a contract. A clause which I doubt has ever been enforced through the courts, or ever could be enforced through the courts.

Doesn't matter what the law is. Lying to the an insured lender is the same as lying to the feds.....which makes it a federal crime. How hard is that to understand? Intent to deceive and defraud are not that hard to prove, especially when the intent was to deceive or defraud.

I posted a link at least year ago to a New York Times article about a celebrity athlete that was prosecuted and is serving two years. Interesting, an IRS agent investigated him because the athlete was traveling and training full time but wasn't reporting that much income. He assumed the athlete was underreporting his income and wanted to know where the money came from.

Turned out the athlete had not underreported his income. But the IRS agent found two loans on two properties made during the Bubble that had gone to foreclosure. One of the loans was made with stated income and the broker put in an exaggerated number. The IRS agent turned it over the lenders and the feds to prosecute, which they did.

How many people do you know who exaggerated their income on a stated income app.?

@John Rooster

John I think the assumption was that this investor is trying to buy a property that has already gone through the foreclosure process and is being sold with the owner occ criteria which is something like for the first 14 days or 30 days only those that intend to occupy as primary residence may make offers on the property.. Investors need to wait until this time expires.. then they can offer. I think what this investor wanted to know is how to circumvent this requirement so they can swoop in on good deals.

One thought would be to do what we did in the 80's in CA.. Where we did all sorts of equity shares with home owners.. WE would put up the down payment and the homeowner would get the loan move into the home and live there for 3 to 5 years and either pay off the investor, or the house was sold and profits split.

Now I don't know if that will fly with current underwriting guidelines. But maybe.. Does not solve the problem of this guy who wants first crack at the deals and does not want to wait our the Owner occ offer time lines.

I think I got this one right. And of course there is no rules at Auction about who can buy its the guy with the CASH period. But that's a whole nother kettle of fish

It is called Mortgage Fraud and there is no way around it.

On Fed properties Wait till Owner Investor period ends, see if property is still available, make credible offer, probably all cash.

It's a property that I can pay cash for and needs a few thousand dollars of TLC. I'll just wait till the 14 day period and make an offer. I'm glad I asked the question and have been even more enlightened by the various responses. My intentions were not to break a law or deceive but to see if there is another way of meeting my objective in acquiring the property.

Originally posted by Kristine Marie Poe:
Originally posted by @John Rooster:
Originally posted by @Brian Gibbons :
As @Account Closed said, obey the law or don't up to u. At ur own peril.

I only buy at foreclosure sales, therefore I need not concern myself with owner occupied clauses related to REO properties. But I take issue with your assertion that it is the law. It is not the law, it is just clause in a contract. A clause which I doubt has ever been enforced through the courts, or ever could be enforced through the courts.

Doesn't matter what the law is. Lying to the an insured lender is the same as lying to the feds.....which makes it a federal crime. How hard is that to understand? Intent to deceive and defraud are not that hard to prove, especially when the intent was to deceive or defraud.

No it isn't. That is just silly. We are not talking about getting a loan. We are talking about buying an REO. If he is paying cash he is not lying to a lender. He is only lying to the Seller. You might think it ok to have clauses in contracts which discriminate against certain classes of people, I don't. I see it as a civil rights issue.

Originally posted by @Bill Gulley :
Originally posted by @John Rooster:
Originally posted by @Brian Gibbons :
As K. Marie Poe said, obey the law or don't up to u. At ur own peril.

I only buy at foreclosure sales, therefore I need not concern myself with owner occupied clauses related to REO properties. But I take issue with your assertion that it is the law. It is not the law, it is just clause in a contract. A clause which I doubt has ever been enforced through the courts, or ever could be enforced through the courts.

You're right, but that's not the issue, deceiving or providing false information to any insured lender in connection with any loan or business transaction is a felony. :)

You don't know the buyer is even getting a loan. The buyer may be paying cash. You are conflating The Bank selling the property with a hypothetical insured lender which doesn't exist. Point missed

Originally posted by @Kurt Kreager :
It is called Mortgage Fraud and there is no way around it.

bangs head on desk

@John Rooster umm, yes it is a crime to buy a HUD home as an investor pretending to be an owner occupant. It is a felony punishable up to two years in federal prison and $250,000 in fines. I have talked to my HUD asset mangers and they confirmed they are prosecuting an investor now. Although HUD is very tight lipped on these issues.

At a minimum HUD will cancel your contract, take your earnest money and take away the agents NAID number that represented the buyer if HUD thinks they knew.

Free eBook from BiggerPockets!

Ultimate Beginner's Guide Book Cover

Join BiggerPockets and get The Ultimate Beginner's Guide to Real Estate Investing for FREE - read by more than 100,000 people - AND get exclusive real estate investing tips, tricks and techniques delivered straight to your inbox twice weekly!

  • Actionable advice for getting started,
  • Discover the 10 Most Lucrative Real Estate Niches,
  • Learn how to get started with or without money,
  • Explore Real-Life Strategies for Building Wealth,
  • And a LOT more.

Lock We hate spam just as much as you

Join the Largest Real Estate Investing Community

Basic membership is free, forever.