The latest skinny on Dodd Frank and the Safe Act

The latest skinny on Dodd Frank and the Safe Act

Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2015 · 677 posts · 309 votes

If you are an individual you can owner finance one deal per year, If you are married your wife can likewise owner finance one deal per year. If you are a trust you can do one deal per year. If you are an LLC or some other corporate entity you can do 3 deals per year. If you are married and your wife has a separate LLC she can do 3 deals per year

and all this is with regards to only owner occupant. If you sell to investors Dodd Frank and the Safe Act do not apply. ONLY TO SOMEONE WHO IS GOING TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY OR HOUSE AT THEIR PRIMARY RESIDENCE. 

After the 3 deals per year if you want to do more than 3 per year then and only then do you have to either be licensed or hire a licensed loan originator. However unlike some are thinking there is a process you can still be the owner financier just not be the Loan originator and you have to document a buyer's ability to pay using DTI and other means of proving the borrower can in effect pay for the loan. You cannot have a Balloon payment requirement in the loan in the 3 deal per year rule but you can on the one single deal per year.

Let me know if you understand this any different as I got this from my attorney. Allot of people have been mentioning that the limit is 5 per year but that is not what my attorney says. 

1Reply
29 views

Most Popular Reply

Rental Property Investor · Clarkston, GA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
11y

All too much "opinion" and too little actual fact.  Few lawyers actually know much about Dodd Frank a banking re-regulation bill (is my opinion).  :)

To add my own opinions:

- 3 per year per human being. No entities are allowed to originate loans post Jan 2014 unless it's your SD-IRA. This is my reading of the regs.

- Lender must provide an appraisal at no cost to the borrower.  Yup I read this in the statute.  But I seem to be charged for the appraisal.  Yet I hear of no investors doing seller financing doing appraisals.  Seems business as usual, picking selling price out of thin air.  IE the reason why DF was written...

- "seller financing must not be a mater of normal course of doing business".  My "opinion" is that DF intended to do away with investors originating loans to occupants all together.  Thus they wrote in that we may not do seller finainced loans year after year.  The 3 number I feel is ment to allow an owner to sell their own residence and a few vacation properties, not for investors to run a rail road train through those clauses.

Mind you,  my wife and I do rent to own and seller financing as a prefered deal type.   I'm working in the edges of DF like many folks.  I feel my opinions above are what the authors had in mind.   So I'm hoping the recent effort to amend DF for seller financing works its way through the legislative process and loosens things up.

Just wait for case law.  Some state's banking dept will string a few investors up and then we'll know more about what we can and can't do.

See this reply in the discussion

25 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Investor · Clairemont, CA · Member since 2011 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    Unfortunately I don't have anything substantive to add, I do have a question(s) for you. 

    What is the time frame on this "latest"? Meaning was there an update or amendment of some kind, or maybe some scenarios that played out where a precedent was established for others? Or is this still based on the original rules that came to be in Jan 2014, just this is your attorney's current take on everything now that he's had more time to digest it all?

    Like I said nothing of substance just some questions I had in order to help understand the situation.

  • Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2015 · 677 posts · 309 votes
    11y

    Yes, Its seems there has been some literature out that stating an owner financier could just simply do 5 deals. According to my attorney it has always been this way. Only 1 deal as an individual and 3 as an entity. This is all based on the 2014 ruling. I looked up the law itself and it says the same . 

  • Rental Property Investor · Clarkston, GA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    All too much "opinion" and too little actual fact.  Few lawyers actually know much about Dodd Frank a banking re-regulation bill (is my opinion).  :)

    To add my own opinions:

    - 3 per year per human being. No entities are allowed to originate loans post Jan 2014 unless it's your SD-IRA. This is my reading of the regs.

    - Lender must provide an appraisal at no cost to the borrower.  Yup I read this in the statute.  But I seem to be charged for the appraisal.  Yet I hear of no investors doing seller financing doing appraisals.  Seems business as usual, picking selling price out of thin air.  IE the reason why DF was written...

    - "seller financing must not be a mater of normal course of doing business".  My "opinion" is that DF intended to do away with investors originating loans to occupants all together.  Thus they wrote in that we may not do seller finainced loans year after year.  The 3 number I feel is ment to allow an owner to sell their own residence and a few vacation properties, not for investors to run a rail road train through those clauses.

    Mind you,  my wife and I do rent to own and seller financing as a prefered deal type.   I'm working in the edges of DF like many folks.  I feel my opinions above are what the authors had in mind.   So I'm hoping the recent effort to amend DF for seller financing works its way through the legislative process and loosens things up.

    Just wait for case law.  Some state's banking dept will string a few investors up and then we'll know more about what we can and can't do.

  • Real Estate Broker · Naples, FL · Member since 2013 · 9k+ posts · 6k+ votes
    11y

    I have asked a few attorneys and not gotten definitive answers. Since DF, I have only done investment properties including fix/flips owned by entities and vacant land.

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    11y

    Curt is the most correct, and yes, he's probably not in full compliance. 

    I thought this thread may have been started by Ken Rishel, I was disappointed.

    Speaking to a general practicing family attorney or real estate type is not speaking to a corporate finance and banking specialist, most here would never want to pay their fees even if they found one. 

    What may have been missed again is that states have established limitations and have approval at the federal level in doing so, but are subject to interpretation at the federal level. 

    There are attorney's spouting off about breaking up the limitations with family members and different entities, what they didn't read in the Act was that ANY method employed to circumvent the intent of the Act is a covered activity, meaning must comply. There is also the issue of who a beneficiary is behind the ploys of using family or entities, who benefited from that note, if you and your wife have a joint account, your spouse isn't really a separate person as you have marital interests. 

    Best place to get information is the CFPB website, not off real estate forums. And, be very careful as to what you are reading as our last DF "oh boy" thread was talking about RMLO compensation, not exceptions as originally thought. :)

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    11y

    @Gilbert Dominguez

    Your post is not correct.. in some states Oregon being one... there are no commercial purpose loans on 1 to 4 units and the safe act applies.. google any HML in Oregon and you will see an NMLS license.. there are other states as well.

    Oregon does have an exemption for owner carry back and for 1 or 2 loans non owner.. but anything past that and you need to be licensed.. so the small player is not affected.

    But a larger private investor is affected and the one's in Oregon have pretty much cozied up with an NMLS broker to keep them compliant.

    Point being some states all Commerical purpose loans are exempt.. other are not.. need to check in each state.

  • Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2015 · 677 posts · 309 votes
    11y

    Yes. Any owner financier or would be financier has to be both federally compliant and state compliant. The states will differ but you have to be compliant to both in your given area. 

    There are expected changes that might but might not be made to the laws as discoveries are made on the effects and consequences these new laws bring to bare. 

    This is why I posed my information in the form of a question. I would not be satisfied I knew exactly what I was doing in another geographical area just because I got it down where I am currently transacting. I would make sure at every location through consultation with a knowledgeable attorney at any given area. That's about the best we can do for now. Both interpretations and policies, meaning local laws and requirements are, and will be different according to your state. 

  • Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2015 · 677 posts · 309 votes
    11y

    One really good reason we would want to understand these laws very clearly or as clear as we can for now is the stiff penalties if found to be non-compliant and worse if found in direct violation. There is a very big hammer ready to smash you painfully into pieces if you think you will just be nonchalant about these new laws. 

  • Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2013 · 37 posts · 5 votes
    11y

    @Nayt Grochowski

    More info for you regarding Dodd Frank.  See Bill Gulley and Curt Smith's posts above.

  • Lender · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Gilbert Dominguez:

    If you sell to investors Dodd Frank and the Safe Act do not apply. ONLY TO SOMEONE WHO IS GOING TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY OR HOUSE AT THEIR PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

    Sorry, but this is just bad advice. It does not recognize the difference between business purpose and consumer purpose loans and it ignores the fact that the rules are both federal and state specific. Perhaps it applies to Illinois only?

    I can give many examples of business purpose loans in California, where Dodd-Frank would not apply to a loan made to an owner occupant secured by their personal residence. I could also give examples of business purpose, NOO loans where it would, even if secured by a shopping center.

    On the others hand, in addition to Jay's example about Oregon, Nevada does not distinguish between business purpose loans and consumer loans, nor does it recognize a difference between commercial or residential property. Colorado is very lenient, and Florida is in between.

    I know this is well-intentioned, but rather than play amateur attorney, anyone loaning money or participating in owner financing must really speak to a qualified lending attorney in their specific state. Don't assume your run-of-the-mill "real estate" lawyer understands all of this.

  • Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2015 · 677 posts · 309 votes
    11y

    I do not think anyone on this forum including myself is pretending to or playing at amateur attorney. We are discussing only what Dodd Frank and the Safe Act say. No one is attempting to cover the entire of lending laws or real estate laws in any given area. Our discussion I believe is meant to be more limiting. However in any case it does appear there is more reason to always consult a specialist in lending law wherever one might be considering owner financing. Thank you all for your comments. 

  • Investor · Cedar Park, TX · Member since 2015 · 26 posts · 12 votes
    11y

    I don't worry about DF. It's amazing how the meddling members of a Govt can manage to screw up anything they try to get involved in. What you need to do is make sure your activities are EXEMPT from this stuff, not compliant. IMHO im not going to be a slave of this lot. 

    Luckily I work or I'm in contact with very knowledgable people who have done the spadework and I will make the necessary adjustments accordingly. My other company has to deal with Govt meddling and interference all the time. Those fools think they know better than me on how to run my business. I stay compliant in that industry because you have to, but RE is a different ball game. 

    Don't let any member of Govt ruin your resolve and dreams of being successful. 

    Good hunting. 

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    11y

    @Blanchard J Ross

      interesting perspective.. all things within the law are fair game..

  • Investor · Cedar Park, TX · Member since 2015 · 26 posts · 12 votes
    11y

    I'm sure Wall Street is shaking in their boots over this so called legislation!! LOL.

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    11y

    @Blanchard J Ross

    the feds are not the problem.. the states that follow the DF are the problem and if your in a state that does your attitude will soon put you out of bizz  LOL.. I think your fine in Texas though.. problem is the other states were they have gone over the top.. Oregon  NV  AZ  and others you violate this law and get turned in your up sh$$$ts creek with out a paddle.. no internet bravado will save you from your deposition with the regulators... !!!

  • Investor · Cedar Park, TX · Member since 2015 · 26 posts · 12 votes
    11y

    I'm certainly not going to argue with you. You have to deal with it your way. I've got holdings in other states so I'm not worried about it. Like I've said before stay EXEMPT from this legislation and you will be fine. BTW this is a Federal law so I find it hard to believe that states will suddenly "change" or "interpret" their own rules on this stuff. 

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    11y

    @Blanchard J Ross

      its a federal law .. however when it comes to non owner occ commercial loans only 17 states choose to follow the fed.. but those 17 states are like Nazi's they are brutual if you violate .. owner occ is all states no getting around that one unless your the Teflon don and don't give a rip.. or as you say you don't violate the law in the first place

  • Beaufort, SC · Member since 2014 · 29 posts · 3 votes
    11y

    Couldn't you just make multiple entities to get around all this?

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Jarrod Rayner:

    Couldn't you just make multiple entities to get around all this?

     What part of the next to the last paragraph in my post above did you not understand?

    "circumvent" means to get around something. :)

  • Rental Property Investor · Clarkston, GA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    @Jarrod Rayner

    Bill said it.  

    This piece of legislation was (just in my view) written by a few legislators (or lobbyists) who where seriously pissed off at investors who made loans to mobile home occupants and investors offering occupant financing other housing types and the builders offering financing to sell their tract houses.   They knew these "perps" are sophisticated and would think just like you offered.  They wrote into the legislation verbage that negates all attempts to hide or encapsulate lending to occupants.

    It's clear (to me) only human beings (you are personally on title to property you are seller financing) are allowed to do 3 loans per year.  No seller financing by an entity unless you are a licensed lender is my read and understanding.  So the "entity" idea doesn't work 2 ways.  Just buy into your personal name, then seller finance.  More goes here re how to actually attempt to be compliant that was covered in other threads.

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    11y

    @Curt Smith

    most MH financing was predatory on its face.. IE interest rates much higher than that of financing on SFR's with the same credit requirements.

    And I can see why... MH foreclosures are very difficult to deal with.  

    case in point.

    I had a care taker on my Oregon Tree farm  ( 700 acres we needed to keep hunters off) and he bought his own MH and moved it there.. Well he just up and left and left the MH there.. the bank then had to foreclose.. they owed 36k on it.. was impossible to sell on the open market as it would have had to be torn down and moved and it was older so hard to find a park for it... so bank just stalled.. I wrote them and said I would start charging them 500 a month storage fee's etc etc.. bottom line we settled at 6k ... and this was pre 08 so had nothing to do with financial mess its the nature of the asset..

  • Rental Property Investor · Clarkston, GA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y

    Hi Jay, No need to turn this thread into a recounting stories of why DF has hurt more occupants by denying them ownership and home selling market liquidity. I agree with most of DF's intent to protect banks and borrowers from making loans to risky borrowers (43% DTI and full doc, verified home value). But the mobile home and doublewide occupant has been hurt by DF in my view. Owners walking from homes because they have no ability to sell to a financed buyer because financing today doesn't exist and investors won't buy because of DF's seller financing limitations. Investors provided that liquidity in the past.

    Jay it seemed that the end of your story contradicted the first sentence inferring that single wide MHs on a 15% note was preditory.  But the default rate in my view justifies the risk premium a lender has to get to cover the take back losses.  

    Anyrate I hope these DF discussions die out untill we see some enforcement / case law to dig our teeth into.  :)

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    11y

    @Curt Smith

      my point is with the NEW definition of predatory loan or rates and or SUB prime that's what these rates are called... and I agree 1000% that you needed those high rates to mitigate the risk of loaning on MH... many a mobil home finance company has gone TU even without the GFC... its a tough space in my mind.

    I have owned a 3 MHP parks and just bought one last week... Its one of the reasons lenders do NOT want you to own any of the units.  We just give them away or sell them for cash... no financing at all is how we do it.

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    11y

    Curt, again, the owner occupant has exemptions, they may finance their home, the dealers are the ones under the gun, not homeowners. A "dealer" is anyone in the business, like yourself.

    You're giving mixed messages on the topic, it's forum chatter........not ready for prime time stuff.

    In the past we have jumped on the "opinion band wagon" but now, July, 2015 it's law and changes are still expected. 

    Loan compliance is more difficult than reading black and white from excerpts of an Act. Instead of saying who readers should not be listening to, it's easier to suggest those who investors should be listening to and discount all other information in public forums.

    Listen to:

    Officials of regulatory agencies. These agencies give opinions on their sites, such "white papers" from the CFPB, state finance and banking regulators and their national associations. These official sites do not have some individual opinion but materials are edited stating official positions unless an author states otherwise. 

    Attorneys, not just any attorney, certainly not the guru attorneys selling RE products, but those with specific financial compliance experience. While any attorney may have a much better opinion than non-attorneys, financial compliance is a specialized area of administrative law. I've never seen any attorney give an opinion on this topic on the internet other than a couple of guru types, they know better. 

    Compliance Officers. These are the compliance auditors and examiners for institutions generally, this is still a gray area as you may have a small bank officer who has had to self-study through this maze , then you may have a compliance officer from a large institution who has attended formal training, so consider that. 

    Compliance advisory groups, these people teach compliance to lenders, assist in setting up internal policies, auditing functions and testing for compliance. They work closely with regulators and legal counsel of governmental agencies and are specialists in the area. Ken Rishel is a member on BP and falls into this group.

    Then you may have loan servicers who have compliance experience in that end of the spectrum, they will be much like that bank compliance officer. 

    You might see a common thread here, all will have relationships, either working or official relationships with regulatory agencies, all registered and supervised lenders should be a phone call away from their regulatory agency, same with specialized attorneys, compliance groups and the regulators themselves. All have administrative compliance or regulatory experience. 

    Since I am retired, I set myself outside this group of compliance specialists with respect to Dood-Frank, yes, I get it, but I'm not in the matter on a daily basis, so I'm not going to be drilling down deep into this area but only comment as to general aspects, as I just mentioned.

    This is a serious matter if you are planning on being involved in seller financing with consumers. If someone lacks specific compliance and/or regulatory experience then their opinions really need to be taken with a pound of salt so to speak as they are probably wrong. An RMLO is no expert, the owner of some loan brokerage or hard money lender isn't going to have such compliance experience, certainly not a Realtor or a fix and flip guy, investor or operator in RE. Note brokers probably have not had regulatory or compliance experience, they may, so ask if they have before taking things hook line and sinker. Finance is not real estate. 

    I'm not trying to squash discussion, cuss and discuss all you like, just take care in stating an opinion as to the interpretation as to who can do what under this law, you can really screw someone up if you are not correct, so check the egos at the door. :)  

  • Rental Property Investor · Roanoke, VA · Member since 2011 · 95 posts · 65 votes
    10y

    Let's say I'm non-exempt and non-compliant. When would my non-compliance become an issue? When the buyer defaults and we have to go to court? Isn't that the only time any of this becomes pertinent? If not, then when else? What else would trigger scrutiny of the non-compliance?

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.