All Forum Posts by: Steve Babiak

Originally posted by Robin Vidovich:

Ian,
So how does your business handle the PA imposed double taxing system that was instilled Jan 08?? (Tax on the negotiated price then tax on the negotiated price plus the wholesale fee)

Robin

Robin,

This is an excellent question, as those who are unfamiliar with the PA Dept of Revenue position on collecting transfer taxes on contract assignments do not have a clue about what you just asked :)

I was at a training earlier this year with a PA attorney out of the Pittsburgh area. He had one concept for this that was quite novel, and would work for most cases. It made use of "Conditional Release of Contract" rather than an "Assignment of Contract"; the release is a NON-PERFORMANCE of the contract, and hence there is no (convoluted) logic to taxation of this.

Eddie,

I think that implicitly you are thinking: Landlords will screen for their bad past performance, and they will have nowhere to go.

Lots of small-time landlords have no clue regarding screening tenants, so they have lots of opportunities to continue in their ways with these unsuspecting landlords.

How about a "Featured Site Feature" segment, where you can discuss in detail some cool feature about the site that is misunderstood or unused or confusing to people or improperly used.

Josh,

Some of those ideas just mentioned sound similar to some ideas I PM'd to you at one time. So I think they are good.

I would add that you might include a section on the site improvements and enhancements that have been incorporated already (since last announcement), and those that are planned for the near-term future and longer-term future. That would drive more feedback on site related ideas, and you might delay something in order to move quicker on something else more popular.

You can try to ask for that, but my guess is the first isn't going to short this at all. If they did, they would typically stipulate what the subordinates will be allowed to receive.

Now, sometimes the subordinates get stubborn, and insist on minimum amounts above what the first has allowed ... That is another discussion.

Originally posted by Mr_Investor:

I'm just waiting for someone to mistype Hadron :mrgreen:

Why James, 'tis usually YOU who does that sort of typo.

Originally posted by motiv8td:

Jon wins the blonde award for the day LOL!!!!

Does that make him "BlondeBeard"?

What puts the first lender in the position of strength is the foreclosure rules that basically say that when the first forecloses, the subordinate liens are at risk of being paid nothing.

Getting paid as much as possible on their non-performing loans is the goal of these subordinate lenders. Sometimes, that means taking whatever amount that the first position lender permits.

Now, since in the case you present, the first position lender would be paid in full, they will not participate in the short sale. Leaving you with the second position lender calling the shots as to the amount of discount that will be permitted. As James indicated, you might not find them willing to budge enough.

Now, you did not say which lender positions are foreclosing; it could be that the first position lender is being paid and that loan is current, or it could be delinquent and the first is foreclosing. This could make a difference.

The third position lender is the one who is getting wiped regardless; in a short sale, they will be lucky to see $1000 allowed to be offered to them, since the second is going to be taking a cut (first is not at risk in this case).

Here is a link describing title underwriting criteria for short sale quick flips:

http://www.biggerpockets.com/links/1726-short-sale-transactions-guidelines-revised

Jon
This thread was posted in the "short sale" forum.