All Forum Posts by: Davido Davido

@Alex Hall There is no specific number of days that you must reside in the home. Instead, FHA enforcement actions are based on those who obtain more than one FHA Mortgage within a one year period, or rent out their FHA insured home within a year of obtaining the mortgage. You might want to check out this FHA web page

https://www.fha.com/fha_article?id=371

The FHA loan rules found in a document known as HUD 4155.1 provide the answer, in the section titled "FHA-Insured Mortgages on Principal Residences and Investment Properties". What follows is the FHA rules for these issues:

"To prevent circumvention of the restrictions on making FHA-insured mortgages to investors, FHA generally will not insure more than one principal residence mortgage for any borrower."

If you want to buy a home, the FHA expects you to use it as YOUR home.

Additionally, "FHA will not insure a mortgage if it is determined that the transaction was designed to use FHA mortgage insurance as a vehicle for obtaining investment properties, even if the property to be insured will be the only one owned using FHA mortgage insurance."

To further clarify this issue, FHA loan rules also add, "Any person individually or jointly owning a home covered by an FHA- insured mortgage in which ownership is maintained may not purchase another principal residence with FHA insurance, except in certain situations as described in HUD 4155.1 4.B.2.d." Those types of circumstances should be discussed with an FHA representative and/or your loan officer. Check with FHA if you have circumstances that might be considered eligible for an exception to these FHA loan rules.

@Nate Hananger, Sorry Nate, I have no information about getting the county to repurchase your lot.  However, it may be worth noting that many people will consider a seasonal stream to be a wonderful plus for the property -especially if county zoning doesn't have any wetland designation on the property. 

Your post does not mention the size of the lot, the zoning, what you want to do with it, or when, but my suggestion would be to spend a few bucks to move enough dirt, so that the seasonal stream flows only where you want it to, and then sell the property with flowing water as an asset.   

Thurston county does require a grading permit for some earth moving, but from the photos it would be easy to do grading a bit at a time so that no permit is required.
https://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/faq/faq-clearing.html

• "More than 7,000 square feet of a clearing activity (clearing and grubbing, conversion to lawn, conversion to pasture, etc.).
• More than 50 cubic yards of grading.  (That's 5 large Dump Truck loads)
• If any amount of grading or removal of vegetation is proposed within a Critical Area."

I think that running water is a definite asset.  Time to make some lemon juice with your lemon.

Well done Mr.. Rohde.  Thank you.

@Chris Martin, "the fact that you paid rent to a guy who claims ownership but does not own the property would be considered Obtaining property by false pretenses which is a Class H Felony"

Yes.  That is true, and according to the information given by James, the OP, the acting landlord did claim to be the owner.  James now has solid evidence that the acting landlord is not the owner.  So the landlord may be liable for both criminal prosecution, and for civil consumer protection act violations.

It surprises a lot of people at BP, but I actually make a hobby of renting out legally abandoned properties that I do not own, and do not have the owner's permission to use (they are usually unlivable -but still rentable).  A version of the rental agreement I use to rent property I do not own, without violating the law, can be found on my BP blog at; https://www.biggerpockets.com/member-blogs/12388-abandoned-property-adventure-on-wildside

@James Johnson  Allied Financial Services has been involved in multiple lawsuits.  They are a lot to read thru.  But if you want background on how their properties in your area may have gone unnoticed by CitiGroup (the new owner), then you may find these cases interesting reading.

https://www.casemine.com/search/us/associates%20financial%20services%20of%20america%20inc

@James Johnson  the information from @Mike Cumbie about how CitiBank is likely to have policies that would seriously impeded your desire to buy this property is entirely accurate for most RE owned by CitiGroup.  However, as you have seen, many of the properties in your area that Citi acquired from Allied Financial Services have not followed the Citibank policies.  It is certainly possible, not probable, but possible that further exceptions to normal policy might be made -if that is the route you chose.    

Mike is not quite accurate in stating that you have to be on the property five years to make a play.  It is possible for you to tack the (7 year) period that your acting landlord has been in possession of the property on to your period of possession.  There are benefits of not antagonizing your acting landlord.  You may want to partner with him.  If he can prove his possession for 7 years, then the two of you working together would have only 3 more years to qualify for adverse possession under Texas's 10 year statute -which applies whether any of you paid the taxes during those 10 years or not.  However, if you want to stay there, do not let your residence go into property tax foreclosure.  Someone must pay enough taxes to prevent the county from filing a foreclosure, because that public filing will bring all kinds of unwanted interest either from Citi or from other tax sale investors who will contact Citi.  Also is some jurisdictions, once notice of impending tax foreclosure is filed, only the owner of record or a lien holder of record may be permitted to pay up the past due taxes.

Alternatively, if you do pay the more than two years of back taxes currently owed, you can still tack the acting landlord's possession onto yours  and then it will only take you only 2 and a half more years of paying taxes and living at the property for you to claim it under the 5 year adverse possession statute that requires paying taxes.  In that case, you paid all the taxes due for five years and lived there for 4 years and you would still need to tack on one year of your landlord's possession.   You'd need proof (affidavit) of his possession and the nexus between you and him.


Mike is also correct in saying, "If anyone can make an adverse possession claim it would be the guy renting it out for 7 years" .  However, if you stop paying rent, then you will move into the driver's seat.   Since, your acting landlord does not appear to have ever paid the property taxes, he would not be able to use the 5 year statute and he can not claim adverse possession under the 10 year statute unless the full ten years has elapsed with him in possession.  His possession ends, when you stop being his tenant.

Mike Cumbie is very likely correct that once you or someone else informs the right person at Citibank that Citi has ownership of this property, you could be told to leave.  

 "they will be removing you faster than you can imagine once they find out you are in there, especially without a lease" 

It would be my guess that you'd be told to leave as well, but do not completely discount the possibility that someone with authority at Citi might realize they are better off with a paying tenant, than they are with a vacant property.  The strange history of this property indicates a greater chance, though still not likely, that you'd be able to arrange a purchase or a rental with Citi.  The fact that you have no rental agreement really won't matter.  Citi would have to file an ejectment action to force you out whether you have a written rental agreement with the acting landlord or not.  

Finally, CitiGroup's deep legal talent is reserved for their pressing needs.  If you filed a quiet title action against them, the matter would be rated as to its importance and, if Citi decided it was even worth contesting, then a lawsuit over this property would be most probably be assigned to a very junior lawyer.  The law would be in your favor.  And it is hard for even the best lawyer to overcome the clear letter of the law.  Let us know what you decide to do.

@Cody L.  I say that the person who is acting as "landlord" in this post is suspected of acting without the authority of the owner because the owner of record has been verified to be Associated Financial Services who we know has since been bought by CitiGroup, the acting 'landlord' is known by James and relatives to be shady, and the acting landlord has not provided a written rental agreement.  

In regard to your self answered question,

"You know how many times a tenant makes a demand of the property manager to "speak to the owner"? Guess how many times they say 'Oh sure, his name is Cody. Here is his cell and address'. Never."

The problem of manager's not being willing to provide owner information was important enough to the Texas legislature that they passed a statute which requires property managers to provide property owner name and address (owner cell # is not required, but you can ask for that to).  See page two of this thread.  While it is theoretically possible that no one in Texas has ever used the statute; Texas Code Title 8, "Property Code"; Chapter 92, "Landlord Tenant"; Subchapter E "Disclosure of Owner & Management"; Section 201 (a) (1) & (a) (2) & subsection (b) , I'm willing to bet that requests for owner information have been made under this statute, and responded to multiple times.  Why would you say "never"?  Perhaps you've only read portions of this thread.

@James Johnson  So if you want to buy the place from Citi, then your local Title companies are most likely already familiar with other 'zombie' properties owned by Citi.  You could start calling title companies and ask for anyone who has experience dealing with Real Estate that Citi acquired from Associates Financial Services.   When you find the right person or company tell them your situation, that you want to buy the property and ask them if they can put you in contact with the person at CitiBank who handles the properties that City got from Associates.

Alternatively, you could try Adverse Possession.   If the taxes on your residence are already over two years past due, then you only have about 2 and half more years before you could file a quiet title action and claim the property using the Texas law of adverse possession.   You'ld have to make sure that your landlord wouldn't interfere, and there is no guarantee that Citi won't eventually show up.  A lot can happen in two years.

Chan, the actions you described in your post are not simple mistakes.  The landlord and/or manager knows that most people just complain and go on with their lives.  You might be tempted to do that as well, especially since even a small claims court filing will require you to return for at least the hearing (you may be able to download the forms online and file by mail).   However, my judgement is that you will feel better about it, for the rest of your life, if you go after what is yours.  You would also be doing a service to everyone that comes after you.  The more the landlord gets away with, the worse he'll get with his next tenants.

Note that many states allow triple (treble) damages for such willful violations of their landlord tenant laws. You could be entitled to be repaid three times what you are owed.  Also, if your not up for filing your own claim, it would still be worth calling the Real Estate lawyers in the area to ask if any will take on the case for a percentage (with no upfront money from you).  You have a clear winner.  Finally, there will be legal aid and housing non-profit organizations in that area that may take the case for you.  If filing your own claim, or finding an attorney who will file without cost to you, don't work out, then at least try your local housing assistance and legal aid groups.  Just google them for your area.   Best wishes

@Michael King,  "So your landlord says, "I'm the owner. You know my name. Here's my PO Box." He's done his legal requirement, right?"   

Almost right.  The P.O. Box can be provided for the owner, but a manage has to provide a street address -which in this case would be helpful.

More to the point, it is suspected that the "landlord" in this post is operating without the owner's authority to rent the property, and has not revealed that fact to his tenant.  If it is true that the landlord is operating without authority to do so, then it is unlikely that he will want to provide any documentation of his actions.  

 You would be correct to assume that it is easy for him to just do what is requested. What you may be missing is that those who believe they are doing something shady, tend to walk away when they think they are found out.  My suggestion may not work, but it could.  From the facts revealed in this thread, I'd bet that just asking for the information requested will be enough to cause the 'landlord' to move on.