Wouldn't a Subject To Hold the Seller from Moving on?
I've been reading more about subject to and here's what I've learned:
-Good for sellers who are off market
-Have low to no equity
-Have a mortgage with a low interest rate (less than 5%)
-Be absentee or out of state (vacant property, or have a tenant)
The buyer would then take over the mortgage payments, and have the seller sign the deed over to the buyer. The mortgage would stay under the seller's name.
The buyer could then rent out the unit, renovate, etc. to increase cash flow or make more money.
But aside from a possible "due on clause" being called by the mortgage company, what's the benefit to the seller?
They are held hostage by the buyer until the buyer fully pays off the mortgage. So the seller cannot go get another loan for a car, house, apartment, etc. so it damages their credit by stretching them too thin.
Am I missing something? In other words, it doesn't make sense for the seller. And equally for the buyer, if you want to renovate and refinance or cash out, wouldn't you have to pay off the entire mortgage at that point and the bank would know it was always the buyer paying off and not the seller?