All Forum Posts by: Tom Gimer

I would negotiate a written option, valid for a reasonable time period, which is expressly binding on the parties heirs, successors and personal representatives.

Then I would record it in the land records.

@Mike Miller Research incorporating a cross purchase agreement into the OA... gives surviving partners the option to purchase the deceased partner's interest.

Access already exists via the recorded easement so it sounds like the issue is whether there is some restriction on how the easement area can be used. Can it be graveled, paved, etc. or not and if not clearly defined how issues or disputes between the two parcel owners will be handled.

Pull the easement from the land records and review its precise language. If you cannot pull and review the instrument you'll need to retain a real estate attorney to do so.

I would be more interested in the process and numbers required for amending the CCRs and the owners' viewpoints on the STR issue than the current governing language. The language is obviously vague. Just read the differing opinions in this thread which are all reasonable — it would be just as easy to make the argument that STRs are not prohibited as long as the entire single family residential property is subject to the occupancy OR that STRs are prohibited because they are a transient accommodation. That's a conflict that needs to be resolved and likely will at some point.

So if X% of the owners who oppose STRs have the numbers and they get together and agree to expressly ban them outright by adding a few words to this section, that would put the issue to rest for a while … and if the property only works as an STR you're screwed.

You need to purchase a lenders title insurance policy every time you refinance or obtain a new first position mortgage. The policy insures the new lender’s lien position. I say first position because some who lend in 2nd etc. position sometimes do not require title insurance.

There is no lenders TI with a cash purchase… no lien to insure.

If the lender forecloses on a property transferred subject-to, the new owner would be a named defendant in the FC action and that could affect credit… check underwriting guidelines. Of course the seller’s credit gets trashed with or without a deficiency judgment.

There are guidelines now from many title insurers concerning vacant land sales... including the requirement that title sends out welcome materials via USPS confirming the seller is selling his/her/its land. They also recommend RON (remote online notarization) for settlements as that process includes identity verification (need knowledge of credit accounts, etc.) which is more difficult to pull off than simply passing a fake ID. Todays fakes actually pass bar code scans!

Yes, the key is land is more often free and clear and clearly more susceptible to fraud schemes.

@Christopher Schray Your main question is not based in fact… the mortgage is still backed by the property. It remains a lien that can be foreclosed regardless of the fact that ownership of the land has changed.

Why would a lender not call the loan and/or foreclose under these circumstances? Because there is no guarantee that the lender would be made whole by doing so. Getting a payoff via refi or resale without the distress element may be a better course of action.

A blind HUD only shows the seller side figures. There is no such thing as a blind buyer HUD… if it is an assignment that fee is always shown on the buyer's settlement statement.

In DC the personal representative’s appointment is automatically terminated on the 3rd anniversary of the appointment… unless extended by written request for additional 12 month periods. Why would there be a need to extend? Administration of the estate has not yet been completed… still claims being litigated or assets being marshaled and sold.