Is there a difference between foreclosing procedures when the lender is instititional or private?
If it's a private lender, for example investor that carries a mortgage for a buyer: can a contract between the investor and the buyer specify an expedited foreclosure in case of the buyer's default?
I don't the specific property laws for California, but I know in Texas that the foreclosure laws specified in the property code govern ALL foreclosures. We have a nonjudicial foreclosure process for everything but home equity loans. You have to give notice to the tenant of default atleast 21 days before the sale and post it at the courthouse. Then a trustee just auctions it at the courthouse steps on the first Tuesday of the month.
I don't the specific property laws for California, but I know in Texas that the foreclosure laws specified in the property code govern ALL foreclosures. We have a nonjudicial foreclosure process for everything but home equity loans. You have to give notice to the tenant of default atleast 21 days before the sale and post it at the courthouse. Then a trustee just auctions it at the courthouse steps on the first Tuesday of the month.
To Ryan Weber:
I understand all that. However my question was not about the content of the foreclosure procedure. The question is whether a default with a private loan is resolved differently than that with a conventional lender. Presumably simpler and faster?
The rights and responsibilities are the same regardless of who the lender is! So no, the borrower cannot waive any of his rights by agreeing to an expedited process! No lawyer would try to write one into a contract, although I can see some non-lawyer trying it. However, that may make the contract void on its face.