SHORT SALE FLIPS - TITLE INSURANCE PROHIBITED

By
Real Estate Attorney with THE ZARETSKY LAW GROUP - Board Certified Real Estate Atty and AUTOMATED LAND TITLE COMPANY

The short sale flip apparently is alive and well for some investors - and it is causing havoc with title insurance underwriters.  Now the title insurance underwriters are making their case simply by declaring that they won't insure such transactions.

This decision is not surprising. As pointed out in SHORT SALE FLIP - QUESTIONABLE METHODS, some investors have seen the reluctance amongst knowledgeable (and ethical?) title insurance agencies to question and usually refrain from being involved in such transactions. The result was the new "twist" of using one title closing agent (and underwriter) for the initial sale and another title closing agent (and underwriter) for the higher sale.

These transactions are also being examined by the shorted lenders - but the current safeguard of having the parties sign affidavits and "disclosures" is seriously not going to stop any investor that sees dollars at the end of the transaction. 

Attorney Title Insurance Fund (in Florida) just today released an Alert and directive to its agents and it is reproduced below.  They are not the first nor will they be the last to take this position.

Fund NewsThe Fund

FUND ALERT: SHORT SALE PROGRAMS

The Fund has become aware of several "short sale programs" advertised on the internet and elsewhere that promise to make the investor lots of money with little or no work by purchasing and selling property through short sales.  The programs involve the investor entering into options or similar contracts with the homeowners for the exclusive right to purchase their property for a period of time.  The investor negotiates a short sale with the lender, convincing the lender that the price they are offering is the market value of the property.  The investor then finds a buyer for the property at a much higher price.  Once the buyer is lined up, the investor buys the property from the seller, pays off the seller's mortgage at the short sale rate, and simultaneously sells the property to the buyer at the higher price, pocketing the difference.  In most cases the original lender is not told that the buyer is flipping the property on the same day for thousands more than the lender has been told is the market value of the property.

In the cases we have seen, the investor has not put any of his own money into the transaction, and uses the new lender's money to fund the entire deal.

A variation of this program involves the investor having the seller convey the property into a "trust" with the investor as "trustee".

The Fund has made a business decision not to insure these types of transactions. 

Before you insure any kind of transaction involving a short payoff to the existing lender, or a simultaneous closing, make sure that the following requirements have been met:

•1.    There are no violations of any restrictions listed in the short sale payoff letter or closing instructions.

•2.     There have been no misrepresentations as to the value or ownership of the property to the existing lender, the new lender, or the purchaser.

•3.     All disbursements must be made exactly as stated on the HUD-1 settlement statement, and only to parties involved in this specific transaction.

•4.     Each half of the simultaneous closing must be kept separate and stand on its own.  The sale from A to B must be fully funded and disbursed with money coming from and going to all appropriate parties.  The sale from B to C must also stand on its own.  The money from C's lender must not be used to fund any portion of the A to B transaction.

If the circumstances of your transaction do not meet the above requirements, you must contact a Fund underwriting attorney for approval prior to insuring the transaction.

Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc. 6545 Corporate Centre Blvd., Orlando, FL 32822
1-800-336-3863 www.thefund.com
In Your Best Interest

THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL LIST -- This email address is not monitored. Please do not reply to this message.

©2009 Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc. The Fund is a registered trademark of Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc. 

Richard Zaretsky, Esq., RICHARD P. ZARETSKY P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW, 1655 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD, SUITE 900, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401, PHONE 561 689 6660  RPZ99@Florida-Counsel.com - FLORIDA BAR BOARD CERTIFIED IN REAL ESTATE LAW - We assist Brokers and Sellers with Short Sales and Modifications and Consult with Brokers and Sellers Nationwide!  Shortsales@Florida-Counsel.com  New Website www.Florida-Counsel.com

Comments (76)

Richard Zaretsky
THE ZARETSKY LAW GROUP - Board Certified Real Estate Atty and AUTOMATED LAND TITLE COMPANY - West Palm Beach, FL
Florida Real Estate Attorney

LCN - '

No.

New Bank needs full disclosure of previous unrecorded transaction.

Old Bank needs full disclosure of sale to new buyer which is or is almost simultaneous (or if an option contract or trust agreement sale).

Prior long term owner needs disclosure of new sale if simultaneous.

Disclosure is not mere recorded contracts or agreements - it is in your face information acknowledged as received disclosure.

Jul 15, 2009 02:38 PM
Jim Gilbert
Keller Williams Fairfax Gateway - Manassas, VA
The Gold Homes Team

Our team declines to deal with investors who do not add value to the real property, in other words "Put money in the ground." We are pleased to deal with flippers who improve the property.  It takes time to make improvements.  

We are also pleased to deal with buy and hold landlord investors.

We are trying to avoid short flips to the extent we can detect them.

Three cheers for Richard!

Jim Gilbert

Associate Broker, RE/MAX Olympic

Jul 16, 2009 05:59 AM
Anonymous
Charles

Great Dialogue from all hands!  That is why I love this country.  Everyone's entitled to an opinion and we don't get shot for it.  Awesome! I love it.  Let's keep it going. 

However we are not addressing Richard's main question which is in regards to the End Buyer's Lender needing full disclosure. 

I do believe full disclosure is key in these deals, but the question I have to ask myself is:  Do I ask Nike or Addias how much they manufactured my $80-100 shoe, even though they are cost of good sold runs for $1-5 made from a 3rd world country, do I question Men's Warehouse how much their so called $175 suit when I know it cost them $20-25 to make? Do I question Ford on how much they manufacture their 5K Fusion and retail it at 22K? Do I question Wal-Mart on everything they sell even though I know they are making a killing?  No we do not. What's the difference when it comes to houses?

  We must remember the end-buyer if they are not in the Real Estate game they do not look at the same lens we RE professionals do.  The End-Buyer looks at comps and the value in their own eyes.  It's up to them to make that decision.  Once they make they make a decision it is their responsibility to get their financing in order. If they use cash, more power to them. If not, and they need to use the bank, good for them too, but they now lost their right to say how much they pay for a particular property.  If they bank decides to finance them, the banks should be savvy enough to do their due diligence and know what the true market value is using their appraisal report based on know short sale price & retail prices.     They don't need to know how much the investor got the house for.  It's not necessary.  If they wanted to know they should talk to the short sale lender not the investor locking in the price. If I was the End-Buyer Lender in this market I would strictly base my appraisal or my reason to finance my client on only Short Sale & Cash Only comps period.  That is the true value today, but they don't and it's their fault not doing their due diligence correctly or they should higher another appraiser. If I was the bank again,   I would never allow my clients which would be the End Buyer to buy full retail, but that's the investor in me talking.  All the end-buyer lenders in my experience of the 50+ short sales of done is if the buyer can afford to pay the loan and if the LTV is close enough to the market value.  They could give a damn about who is making 100K or more as long as they get paid all their interest and the original loan 15-30 yrs from now... 

Banks are interesting entities. They are in the business of making money!  Let's not forget that.  Once again, I'm for full disclosure but is it necessary for the investor to disclose to the End Buyer Lender on what we were able to purchase our Nike Shoe, Ford Fusion, Italian Suit, all my Wal-Mart Good and Single Family Home when we are selling to their clients.  Absolutely NOT!  If the end buyer lender wants to know what we paid for the SFH, I would tell them that they are in the wrong business and should be in the Residential Construction Business.  Their business is on making good solid loans to people that can pay them and if they were to default, would they be able to resell their new asset which is the property not the end buyer which was the original assets within 15-30 days in today's market. If they are not willing to get a little elbow grease and learn their market on who they make loans to and the area their collaterals will be located at, then shame on them for making their loans.. 

Morale of the story: Let the End Buyer's Lender make their own decision on whether or not they should make their loan to the End Buyer based on their own due diligence   If it's a bad deal, I wouldn't finance project much in the same way if I would finance a new business.  If I was the bank I would not be loaning on unless it was back to 2002-2003 Prices which were we should be really at! 

Great question Richard!  This was a great dialogue to learn from everyone's feeling on the matter.  We have much to learn from each other.

Aug 11, 2009 03:30 PM
#61
Renée Donohue~Home Photography
Savvy Home Pix - Allegan, MI
Western Michigan Real Estate Photographer

I am linking this post on to one of my posts!

Aug 21, 2009 01:26 PM
Anonymous
Jim

WOW!

Applause to all of you guys.  You know I also asked myself if this is ethical or not.  Look at all the parties involved and the effects and cost to foreclose.

Traditional short sale

  • Property is listed - Seller agrees they need to do a short sale
  • Realtor gathers documents from the seller which takes weeks because realtor is unfamliar with the process of each bank
  • Then submits for an approval
  • Bank says we will not start any file without an offer
  • Agent drops price to get an offer
  • Usually 2-3 months go by until you get an offer
  • Agent submits offer and try to work the deal
  • Interior BPO is trigger
  • Bank usually take anywhere from 2 to 6 months until an actual approval
  • Buyer usually walks because they find a home the are able to occupy and usually in better condition

Seller gets forclosed on and agents doesn't get paid.  Seller get credit score effected anywhere from 200-280 points. Bank hire laywers to foreclose, cleans up property, Property taxes, home deteriort, Code violations, outsource to asset company, property cost to clean up and repair, realtor then gets involved and does BPO, and then property finally goes back on market and usually for a discounted price.  Price incurred by the bank?  I have heard it could cost any where for total cost an average for $25,000 to $35,000.  This is for the total complete process from A to Z.

Investor

  • Investor give seller all of their options (Full Disclosure)
  • Investor knows what the bank needs (Bank is also aware of the intent of the investor)
  • In the offer investor also has verbaige to have this account settled in full!
  • Makes an offer = negotiations start immediately
  • BPO is triggered
  • Because offer is in foreclosure is extended
  • Price is agreed
  • Buyer or Investor is generated
  • Property close

Seller moves on with their lives to start a new life.  Agent gets paid.  Bank does not have to foreclose.  If you add up all these types of deals, banks could save millions.  Our economy is slowing recovering instead of having hundreds of thousands of more foreclosures.  Also, if negotiated properly the seller could get a 1099.  Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 will eliminate taxation on debt forgiveness until the end of this year.  I think they will extend this.

4 Wins - BANK/SELLER/AGENT/INVESTOR - Stop reading and go make some money!!!  Great topic!!

Sep 02, 2009 11:49 AM
#63
Anonymous
Shane

It has been until 2012.

http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=179073,00.html

To address a comment earlier regarding approval letters stating theres no reselling the property for 30 days, that is one lender (Bank of America).  No other short sale lenders object to this type of purchase and re sell at this time.

Sep 10, 2009 08:50 AM
#64
Richard Zaretsky
THE ZARETSKY LAW GROUP - Board Certified Real Estate Atty and AUTOMATED LAND TITLE COMPANY - West Palm Beach, FL
Florida Real Estate Attorney

Add Wachovia and Aurora to the list.

In fact, because of the problematic issue of insuring the title to the property where there is a way the lender can "rescind" its satisfaction, we created a special warranty deed for those short sale transactions.

This special warranty deed states that if the Grantee (Buyer) issues a deed to a third party within 30 days of the date of the special warranty deed, the special warranty deed becomes retroactively void and invalid and the real estate shall remain vested and owned by the Grantor (Seller) without any refund to the Buyer.

So far, no problems!

Sep 11, 2009 12:19 AM
Anonymous
Andy

"The Fund" has reversed its position -- it appears that those who were ridiculed for disagreeing with the Fund's position and advocating on behalf of legitimate short sale investors were right all along.  They have been vindicated by the very same folks who put out the wrong information in the first place.  See below:

UNDERWRITING BULLETIN

TO: ALL FUND MEMBER AGENTS
FROM: UNDERWRITING DEPARTMENT – Attorneys’ Title Fund Services, LLC
RE: Short Sale Transactions - Guidelines Revised
DATE: September 4, 2009


On June 8, 2009 The Fund issued an “Underwriting Alert” regarding Short Sale Transactions. The Alert indicated that certain transactions involving an intermediary purchasing, negotiating and flipping a short sale property where the “true sales price/value” has not been disclosed to the original lender should not be insured. While these transactions are still an area of concern, it is no longer required that the “true sales price/value” be disclosed to the original lender as long as the intermediary’s “right to sell” is disclosed in the purchase contract. Before you insure any kind of transaction involving a short payoff to the existing lender, or a simultaneous closing, make sure that the following requirements have been met:

  1. There are no violations of any restrictions listed in the short sale payoff letter or closing instructions.
  2. There have been no misrepresentations as to the value or ownership of the property to the existing lender, the new lender, or the purchaser.
  3. All disbursements must be made exactly as stated on the HUD-1 settlement statement, and only to the parties involved in this specific transaction.
  4. Each half of the simultaneous closing must be kept separate and stand on its own. The sale from A to B must be fully funded and disbursed with money coming from and going to all appropriate parties. The sale from B to C must also stand on its own. The money from C’s lender must not be used to fund any portion of the A to B transaction.
  5. The intermediary’s “right to sell for profit” is appropriately disclosed in the purchase contract.
  6. The short sale lender is an institutional lender.

If the circumstances of your transaction do not meet the above requirements, you must contact a Fund underwriting attorney for prior approval.

If you have any questions or experience any difficulties in regards to this Bulletin please call The Fund’s Underwriting Department at 800-432-9594 For Georgia call 877-770-1819; for South Carolina call 800-561-1151.

Oct 01, 2009 06:19 AM
#66
Richard Zaretsky
THE ZARETSKY LAW GROUP - Board Certified Real Estate Atty and AUTOMATED LAND TITLE COMPANY - West Palm Beach, FL
Florida Real Estate Attorney

Different "The Fund".  There is no reported policy shift in Florida.

Oct 03, 2009 02:11 AM
Anonymous
Teddy

That fund bulletin is directly from the www.thefund.com  it applies in florida as well.  I think the issues you are all discussing come down to whether it is still legal to use a trust to hide the sale of intangible property.  Walt Disney does it all the time.  The answer is yes, it is legal.  Trust law is well settled.  Ethical? Thats a judgement call.  An investigator can decide its not ethical and try to find something else you did wrong.  So if you do these deals the way the fund advises, make sure you are not skipping any steps or doing anything else that may draw unwanted attention.  That includes making sure all parties in the transaction are happy with the end result and kept fully informed.  There is no legal requirement that the purchaser's bank know about an intangible transaction of rights.  They can see the trust on the title commitment and each bank can make their own policy regarding trusts.  Its not that difficult to do.  

Oct 09, 2009 08:11 AM
#68
Anonymous
Aric K. Melder

In Michigan as well the only sales are short sales.  Sad but true.

Aric K. Melder
Attorney at Law
Melder & Melder, P.C.
2304 East Eleven Mile Road
Royal Oak, Michigan 48067
Telephone: (248)-541-3400 or (800)-LAW-5454
Facsimile: (248)-541-6332
E-Mail: aric@melderandmelder.com
Web: melderandmelder.com

Oct 21, 2009 01:59 AM
#69
Travis Duncan
Aloha Properties of the Carolinas - Charlotte, NC - Charlotte, NC

Vindication of Back to Back Closings!

Below is an excerpt from one of the leading real estate attornys in the U.S.

"In the middle of the summer of 2009, there was much fear and hand-wringing over whether short sale transactions where investors were involved could be done. Some investors were running around screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" because of the newspaper publicity over an underwriting bulletin issued by The Attorney's Title Fund services in Florida.

Recently, another underwriting bulletin was released The Attorney's Title Fund. It was released on September 4, 2009. There was no media buzz, there was no hand-wringing, there was no hue and cry. Why? Because it quietly and simply vindicates exactly what I and Strategic Real Estate Coach have been teaching since 2007. See The Fund bulletin of September 4, 2009 for short sale transactions.

One of the purposes of the option contract is to disclose that the intermediary has a right to sell. Not only is it disclosed in the option contract, it also disclosed in the recorded notice of option. Print the bulletin out, show it to your title companies, and obviously show it to all of the naysayers who say that what you are doing is illegal, because now you have even more proof that what we are doing is not only permissible and legal but it is also insurable from a title underwriting point of view.

See, I told you so."

Oct 22, 2009 04:58 AM
Stephen A. Harlan
Harlan and Associates, LLC - Sandy Springs, GA
Esq.

That a transaction may be insurable does not necessarily mean that it is not fraudulent. I don't think the The Fund's statement can be seen as a vindication of these types of systems. Instead it clearly states that these transactions are still an area of concern.

The mere provision of underwriting guidelines is a far cry from an endorsement of the legality of the strategy.

Oct 23, 2009 03:44 AM
Anonymous
FP

I am an investor and work with lots of local investors.  Here are some answers to your speculations.

 

MYTH: "The investor tricks the bank into selling for less"

TRUTH: The bank pays for an appraisal of the property and I have never heard of a BPO Agent or Appraisal 'in-kahoots' with the investor.  The problem is that the bank is soo cheap that they will not pay for an appraisal and count on a newbie Agent (BPO) to 'price' the property.  The bank got their 'Value' and made an educated decission.  There is no'Trick' to that.

 

MYTH: "It is not ethical to re-sell a property the same or next day for a profit"

TRUTH: Yes it is ethical. 

    REASON #1) If You and I were both looking for a home in the same area and over dinner I just happened to mention that I locked in a contract on a house that you would 'die for' at a price you would 'kill for' .. should I have the right to make you happy and re-sell you the property?  Yes. And if found the seller and negotiated the contract .. I want to make a profit for giving you such a great deal on the home you wanted much more than I do.  Is that unethical? I do not think so.

     REASON #2) Think of the investor like a Used Car Dealer.  Does the used dealer give you 100% market value for your car? No.  He buys it at 'wholesale' (say 70% value), may have to make repairs, market for a new buyer and then finally sells it 'Retail'.  You could call this 'Flipping Cars' if you wanted to.

    Same applies to investors except with houses. A Motivated seller contacts the investor to sell their home at a wholesale price (70%), investor may make repairs, markets the property and resells it to a retail buyer. Same exact thing? YES.  Is it unethical, no.

 

     REASON #3) In the 'art' of negotiation, the Buyer is ALWAYS looking to get the best possible price. It is not the investors job to pay more money bc they feel bad that the lien holder is ignorant about its own assets.

     REASON #4)  I cant count how many times I have had short sales refused and then see the property LISTED with an REO Agent for $20k less than our offer a month earlier. Or maybe a pipe bursts while the property sits vacant and knocks $100k off the value.  How much money did they save now?

Dec 23, 2009 04:07 PM
#73
Anonymous
concerned in Florida

I am representing an end buyer on a short sale that has an investor involved in the middle. The listing agent has not been involved since the original offer was presented. All contact for us has been with the short sale investor who has been doing the negotiating with the lender and whose name was on the contract as the seller. The investor told us that the lender agreed to $372,000 but because of seasoning issues, the buyer will have to bring two checks to closing, one for $360,000 to the lender and another for $12,000 to the investor. It is obvious that the $12,000 is his profit and the buyer is OK with this, the investor's dishonesty notwithstanding, as he feels $372,000 is a good price for the property. The buyer is getting an 80% mortgage on the $360,000 contract price. It all smells to me but I can't figure if any legal or ethical lines are being crossed. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Jan 18, 2010 01:55 AM
#74
Anonymous
Ever

Hey Everyone,

In case any wants to know The Fund Revised this back on September 2009. Their new bulletin clearly states the disclosure to the selling lender is no longer required. The "right to resell" must be included in the contract.

"it is no longer required that the “true sales price/value” be disclosed to the original lender as long as the intermediary’s “right to sell” is disclosed in the purchase contract."

http://www.thefund.com/portal/news/index.jsp?id=1011699#item

It only makes sense they are two separate transactions. If you sold your car to a dealer for $4000 and he has a buyer waiting to buy that same car for $6000. Is it the sellers right to know the dealer is selling for $6000. Of course not, it's basic capitalism.

More and more lenders. No including FHA are making waivers so investors can buy distressed properties and resell them quickly. See Wells Fargo new credit policy again allowing for short sale flips with proper disclosure. The market is changing every day.

 By the way I value Richard's opinion very much. He has an opinion that the seller should not sell his property to an investor because they are getting short changed. My only comment is sometimes the seller would not have sold the property without the investor. We are the only ones that stay in the deal till the end, while other buyers would have walked away long ago. All ethical investors truly want to help the homeowner, but we can only help so much. We need to make a profit to continue, we got bills to pay.

Thanks for listening.

Ever

Feb 05, 2010 05:12 PM
#75
Anonymous
Jay

I'm starting to notice a common theme in Richard's posts and it's one of fearmongering.  I guess that's one way to get people's attention but couldn't you just tell agents the CORRECT way of doing a flip instead of reinforcing the fears their uninformed minds already have?

I've been a licensed realtor in CA for 18 years.  I am also an investor who uses the business model mentioned.  Transactional funds are used to purchase the property and re-sell it in a double closing, which is totally legitimate according to FNMA, Freddie Mac and now FHA based on their recent guideline change regarding legitimate property flips.

http://tinyurl.com/4f3bjo

http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/guide/bulletins/pdf/bll0924xA.pdf

The state of California is extremely protective of consumers and if it can be done here legally, it can be done anywhere.  (These deals in fact are happening around the country, every day) Here in our state the distressed seller has become a protected species and the utmost care must be taken to make sure they are represented and that the listing agent is not involved in any other part of the transaction and owes no fiduciary duty to any other parties involved.

AS someone else has alluded to previously, arbitrage occurs every day in business. Welcome to capitalism. 

"Realtors," in all their wisdom, often ask the question "how can a property have two prices on the same day?"

The answer is that a distressed property has a lower inherent value than a property which has been taken out of the distressed category. Realtors, ask yourself why buyers and their agents will pass up a short sale listing to pay a higher price for a non-short sale listing.  There is your answer.

The one thing that really irks me about many who call themselves Realtors is that they don't realize that once someone is in default and heading for foreclosure, their fiduciary duty is not to get the highest offer for their property, it is to get them OUT of foreclosure.  The best solution to their problem is a quickcash sale.  The buyer who offers top dollar is often a marginally qualified FHA buyer who may likely fall out of escrow or lose interest in the property mid-escrow. As we all know, the banks usually keep heading towards foreclosure full steam no matter what the status of the short sale and often do sell the property out from under a homeowner despite them being in the middle of negotiations.

(I have seen this happen to so-called "distressed property specialists")

Realtors are really doing their clients a disservice when they stick to the standard "highest offer" mode of thinking while dealing with a client who has an impending foreclosure sale date. 

I'd go so far as to say they are committing malpractice, especially if the home is sold out from under the seller while he is waiting for his realtor to get the "highest offer."

http://getoutofforeclosurenow.com

The best offer is the one that will close.

Feb 08, 2010 07:32 PM
#76
Anonymous
Jay

Sorry, I inadvertently posted the wrong link for the FHA revision.

 

Here's the correct one.

 

http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10-011

Feb 08, 2010 07:48 PM
#77
Anonymous
Criag

What happens when you have 2 cash buyers.  A-B Cash (funds in escrow), B-C(Cash funds in escrow)  no buyer lender involved.  How can the A seller's lender restrict the resale for 90 days?   The problem is the SS approval affadavit requires everyones signature.  If it's not signed, the lender will not approve the sale and no deal takes place?  Once the funds come and go, I'm not sure what they can do other than go after the original note holder who has no money.  I think they make the statements to scare people. 

I have a situation where the buyer is in contract, will close, rehab the property and intends to resell.  The property needs repairs, but the sellers lender is restricting the resale for 90 days.  The rehab is only going to take 30 and he alreasy has another family who wants the property.

I'm scratching my head who it's OK for banks to cheat & steal, but Real Estate Investor's can't stimulate the economy for a profit.   

I hear the best way may be to close in a corporation and have the 2nd buyer purchase the corporation.  No transfer of property, no transfer of title, no taxes or title insurance needed. 

Mar 25, 2012 11:55 AM
#78
Richard Zaretsky
THE ZARETSKY LAW GROUP - Board Certified Real Estate Atty and AUTOMATED LAND TITLE COMPANY - West Palm Beach, FL
Florida Real Estate Attorney

The 90 day (some lenders use 30 days) is endemic to the short sale industry now.  Funny they don't use it for an REO sale.

Your concept about the corporation (or trust or limited liability company) has merit, but there is issues regarding the intent of the sale of the equity or beneficial interest and if a lender wanted to challenge it my bet is that they would not be the loser.  Also many states, including Florida, have passed express laws on the avoidance of transfer taxes relating to the transfer of real estate in a statutory entity - don't expect to avoid any transfer taxes and non-payment carries a nice penalty.

Mar 25, 2012 10:35 PM

What's the reason you're reporting this blog entry?

Are you sure you want to report this blog entry as spam?