Home Sellers Beware of Home Buying Companies!

These people are really just taking advantage of ignorant home owners.  Often ones that are in trouble. 

First - there is a reason why you should keep all of the paperwork forever that deals with the purchase of a property.

Secondly - you should seek the advice of an attorney when dealing with contracts, even when dealing with a licensed agent!

Third - As an agent are we frauds by saying that we list/sell property and suggest that the owner rent it or better yet not even take the listing?

Fourth - based on the assumptions made then all of the real estate agents that were party to a sale that is now in default is a party to fraud on the lending institution.

I am not currently active as a real estate investor but am aware of the many techniques that are used as an  investor - same of the same ones that are used by real estate agents, especially when banks don't lend or the interest rates are high like the 1970's.

There are good and bad in both camps, check out the disciplinary actions from your state's real estate commission. 

This is just SO wrong, I have seen the signs but never knew the extent of their activities. 

☂ Larry, funny we just had an attorney in to talk with our office the other day about fraud and he was discussing this exact topic.  There apparently was a large scam going on ...  thought he said they caught the guys that 'buy ugly houses'.  Hope so but this is really sad.
Pamela

Larry,

I have read the entire Post and all of the comments again, and while we can go Tit for Tat on what we have done for homeowners, to assist them in selling an unwanted house, the real issue is what was posted. It contained Not even half of the information to make a judgment call as to what happened.

Disclosure laws exist because homeowners do NOT always tell the truth about their properties and the issues that they may have. The home buyer is the one that needs to beware whether it is an investor or a homeowner occupant.

Yet about 95% of the comments that ensued were jumping to the conclusion that the Homeowner had been duped?

My first impression was that this was a bad post, but that is not true. What really riled me, in retrospect was the fact that so many rushed right past the fact that no one had the smoking gun and they were ready to convict.

Maybe my sense of reality is just a little different. I look at all of the information and if anything is missing I ask questions first.

Larry:

Just a clarification or two. I took a look at the question on Trulia and the five responses to it, including yours. Honestly, yours was a pretty good response overall. I'd disagree with your statement: "there is a question of legality since the majority of home loans out there have what is called a "due on sale" clause where if you are selling a home you must payoff the existing home loan." It's not really a question of legality, though--true--a Subject To does violate the "due on sale clause." A due on sale violation is not a violation of the law. But, otherwise, your answer was pretty good--in my opinion, the best of the five there. (I just gave you a "Thumbs Up" on Trulia for your answer--hope you don't mind!)

However, there's nothing in the original question to support your statement: "The judgements I made was based on a preliminary investigation.  No the property was not deeded to the investor first off.  The property has had late payments and has fallen behind in the past.  So everyone's posturing is sounding awfully shaky at this point." The questioner didn't return to provide additional information. Nor did the questioner provide contact information. If the questioner contacted you, then--fine--you did get the additional information. But it's overreaching to say that one is "posturing" based on a full reading of your posting and the full thread on Trulia.

Otherwise, though, all we know is what the questioner orginally posted, and which you--to your credit--reprinted in full in your original posting. In fact, since the questioner admits he/she has lost the paperwork, even the questioner probably doesn't know for sure whether the property was deeded to the investor or at what point the investor agreed to refinance. That's the whole crux of the matter, isn't it? Indeed, it's just possible that the investor is living up to his agreement 100%.

I have to echo what Peter (#81) said: "What really riled me, in retrospect was the fact that so many rushed right past the fact that no one had the smoking gun and they were ready to convict."

Wow, I have seen those signs and wondered what is was all about. Thanks for the heads-up.

Brian, that was an awesome comment.

I am wondering how some people on this thread are still posting comments that indicate that fail to consider both sides.  The whole point of a conversation is not to keep holding on to your ignorance.  Somne amazing people here have introduced facts and concepts from which we can all learn.  And Larry has shown that it is not as simple as his blog post suggested,  But some people are still saying things like "gee whiz, those signs are bad." 

(exasperated sigh).

I didn't read ALL of your feedback/comments above, but if I were the former sellers I'd contact a title company and run a title report to determine clear ownership.  Then contact a real estate attorney with that information in hand.  This will short cut their first appointment, possibly saving time and money in the process. 

Brian Park:

Bravo Brian, you NAILED IT!!!! your clarity is profound and you laid it out perfectly for everyone to get, except those that are in denail.

Peter 

Now I know how that works!

Now I understand better how this works. I was never sure myself. Thank you!

The name of these companies are bad enough to scare anyone away. Not  for me.

It's just a horse of a different color.