All Forum Posts by: David C.

Good question, I was wondering this myself. So I did some internet sleuthing.

If you are managing for compensation and for another, you need a CA broker license: CA B&P 10131

This Real Estate Bulletin talks about a broker's responsibility to supervise, and how they prosecute "rent-a-broker" (aka Silent Partner?) situations: Real Estate Bulletin Summer 2010 

If it's a property owned by your corporation, the management can be done by a corporate officer without a license: CA B&P 10133

Not sure if a property owned by an individual can be managed by an employee of that individual ... this is what I'd really like to know.  Or owned by a Corp managed by an employee.

There is a licensing exception for a resident manager ... CA law requires properties w 16 or more units to have a resident manager.

@Martin A Phillips

If you have loan servicing they will to the tax statements for both lender and borrower.

If not, it's my understanding borrower is required to 1099 you as lender, unless you are a corp.  I'm not a tax person.

Hi Martin,

If I’m reading your question correctly it’s not as much about your trust as it is about *public* mortgages. When you say public, it tells me you’re considering some kind of public advertising. Advertising would put you in the category of ‘doing business’, in that case, you would need a state or federal securities exemption or licensing. These rules are state specific, there is no one easy answer fits all.

For the business purpose loans I do, borrower writes off interest as a business expense, lender declares interest as ordinary income. No special tax treatment like the depreciation you get owning business property. I don’t advertise.

Re Private Lender definition, if they substituted the word most for all in the sentence “all loans are made …” I think it would be accurate.

They obviously took the definition of Business Purpose Loan and dropped it in at the end of the Private Lender definition without much thought.

My understanding ... this is a skeleton filing, meaning it is the absolute minimum amount of paperwork required to get the stay, with the required balance of material filed within a short period of time (14 days according to the link I gave above). If the additional material isn't filed within 14 days (which it won’t be), the BK doesn't go forward, and the stay is automatically lifted. The technique is only meant to buy time, not to stop fc.

Perhaps the BK never shows up anywhere because the complete filing was never completed, not sure.

I’d have to go back and look at 1695 but I seem to remember the 5-day cooling off period is waived if the fc is schedule sooner than 5 days.

If homeowner is willing to work with you, to gain time, I would first contact trustee to see if a postponement is possible, if not, you can gain time by filing an emergency bankruptcy petition, a relatively simple paperwork filing causing an immediate stay, this will give you 14 days to figure things out.

At this point the lender doesn't have to agree to anything, simply wait out the stay and proceed w fc.  But, the lender may be agreeable to reinstatement thus stopping the foreclosure and forcing them to restart lengthy fc process all over again should they decide to act on the due-on-sale clause violation caused by your taking title sub2.

This is not advice and I'm not an attorney.