All Forum Posts by: Audley Humes

Originally posted by smitnlit:

This stuff scares the crap out of me. I can see why the perception people have of Investors is that we are defrauding people.

Inves

I know most of the active members here on this short sale forum do things differently than me but the reason we wait to relist the property until it's pretty much accepted is this line here: [i]
The facilitator neglects to disclose to the lender/investor that there is an outstanding offer between the facilitator and a second end-buyer for $95,000. [i]


Now you can interpret this many ways....as an investor, I don't need to TELL MY NEGOTIATOR (i.e. my facilitator) that I have a higher offer and the facilitator really has no knowledge...Technically in my case, we usually don't have an offer by approval. We get the offer AFTER approval and still do a simul close. We probably eat away at our profits because we do drastic price drops to get the offer in, in some cases, AND on occassion we've asked for extensions, but I still feel safer getting an offer close to or after an approval.

Thoughts?

I'm sure this would probably still be considered a 'grey' area by Freddie Mac. Although technically you wouldn't have a offer, so at least you wouldn't be lying. That doesn't pose a problem waiting to market for a end buyer so late? Reason, I'm asking is because somethings we get approvals where we have to close in two weeks with no extentions.

I'm interested to seeing what Jeff Watson, and/ or the guys from Old School Title think about it.

Regardless of which method the Investor uses, in most cases there will be a 2nd contract higher than the A-B purchase price. This will probably cause a lot of trouble for the majority of Investors doing Short Sales. I'm curious as to what others think about this.

Here we go again! This is opposite to a bullentin that The Attorney's Title fund issued months back. They would not insure the transaction if the Buyer/Investor did not disclose to the end lender the purchase price of the A-B contract. They later revised this stating, as long as the "right to resell " was in the contract they would insure. Hopefully this will be short-lived!

As long as there is a title company that understands what we do and willing to close our transactions, and we continue to disclose everything to all parties involve, we will continue to do A-B-C transactions..

I'm sure there will be webinars coming out soon about this issue. I would not panic quite yet. Where there's a will there's a way! This is nothing new, how many times have laws and regulartions come out to discourage or eliminate Investors from make a decent living.

If it comes to it we'll just have to find, legally, a way around it!

The Agent will have to either be the Investor or the Agent, not both.

I think Dustin hit it on the head here. If the contract states that you plan to re-sell for a profit, and there is no Anti-flip verbiage in the approval letter, I don't see what the problem is. That would really Irritate me!

No problem.

Ouch, that sucks! Yea, you'll just need to send in a new ATR with your new negotiator's name, and you shoudln't have any problems picking up where your last negotiator left off.

How long have you been out of contact with your Negotiator?

See if you can sign your name 'as member' or 'as agent'. Your title company may be able to close in your entity. If the approval letter states, YOU MUST close in your name, then you may have a problem. I'm dealing iwth a similar situation right now.

Originally posted by D Brown:

Hi

If the lender has approved a short sale and has indicated it will issue a discharge of mortgage to the borrowers, release the 1st lien position the lender currently holds, and will issue a 1099C, does that mean that they will not be pursuing a deficiency judgement? Seems like they can't issue a 1099 for forgiven debt amount otherwise, does that seem right?

Thanks for any insights

That's correct. I've seen a case where a lender sued a homeowner for the deficiency amount, but the homeowner arguement was that the lender issued a 1099c. The lender originally won the case, but the homeowner appealed it and it was found that the homeowner was correct and the judge over-turned it.

If I can find that case, I'll post it. But technically, if a lender issues' the homeowner a 1099c, then they forgave the debt for that tax year and won't pursue a deficency. I'd always verify with a tax professional if I were you.

Originally posted by James Ward:

H Mann,

We work with Wells Fargo on a regular basis. We find them to be one of the more eaiser Lenders to work with. The key to Wells and other Lenders is to use the same Negotiator whenever possible. This saves time and efforts.

We have not had any issues with the 30 day no filp rule. But it is due to how we approach Wells.

James is right on with this one! This is the exact same approach we take. Having a Negotiator contact is as good as gold! Although, a good contact is never guaranteed.

A little off topic, but we had a great contact with U.S. Bank (got us an approval with PMI in 3 weeks!) and we called her up about 2 weeks later to submit a file, and she had been moved to a different department. Too good to be true!

90 day clause?? Do you mean 30 day no flip clause? Personally, they did not issue this on our last two. There's a recent WF thread talking about this issue:

http://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/103/topics/46971-wells-fargo-short-sale-addendum?page=1