All Forum Posts by: Jason Taken

1. probably the easiest and least complex options - also should not be really any more cost than opening a single member entity tbh...ensure that dissolution clauses are properly drafted for you both being on title

2. for one rental property, this is overkill (although there are many people that will say you need to do this...the maintenance and cost of a trust for one rental property is likely not profitable) 

3. personal name with good insurance policy if you're worried about liability

Happy to go over ideas. I'm a lender and attorney in the state of illinois, so while this is not 

We only lend gap to people who've completed at least 1 exit with us. Typically, we're at 15-20%, and a flat origination. And we pay close attention to spread on the deal.

No seasoning as long as there is rehab on the property is pretty easy. 

 It does exist. If you're dealing with institutional funding, it generally comes with some strings like having exceptional experience and decent credit. Some of our capital investors don't mind the 90/100 if it's in a very hot market. And --- if you use a capital investor who's private-minded over institutional, you can likely find some help there as well.

What market are you in? And why is 85% LTV not good enough? If you were to call us, those are the first questions we'd ask.

Yes. Bridge loans where you're buying below market value. If the numbers work, downpayment can be adjusted accordingly as long as day 1 LTV for lender makes sense.

Something not considered in many of these replies are prepay rules and asset types in each state. Also the ability to foreclose on the lender's behalf. Moreover, turning it into a multi-collateral loan would make the secondary market transaction needlessly more difficult with no upside for the lender or note buyer.

That being said...

It is unlikely you'll find a letter to write a multi-collateral loan with properties in different states.

Question I'd ask is what benefit do you gain from doing this? You'll likely have partial release provisions that prohibit you from making any profit if you were to sell off one of the assets.

 If its for non-owner occupied, more often than not at the current moment, the math doesn't work for cash flow. Plus --- being overleveraged at the front sounds great for now, but when you need to refi, or pay off that second, unless there is a value add, there won't be enough room and you'll have the unplanned need for cash rather than handling it on the front end and having that equity to play with. Just one thought.

If it's non-owner occupied, you can do a HELOC or a cash out refinance with the rehab holdback and defer all of the monthly payments you'd otherwise have with a HELOC until you do the final refi at the new established value.

Two policies might be the right move to protect both interests. If title is vesting into your mortgagor, then I would imagine they would want a policy as well.

 Educating the seller on seller finance is the struggle. You also have to understand their needs. For most sellers, seller finance doesn't make sense. Generally, high equity, low-to-no mortgages, and people who could stand not taking that tax liability are good ones.

You absolutely need to understand the motivations behind the seller selling before just straight up offering a seller finance scenario.