Commercial property owner deadbeats on the rise

[investor]

Kingside. You are probably correct with cali law. I have not done a commercial loan there so I will defer to your experience. In other parts of the country, personal gurantees are typically negotiated. I wonder if california, being a hotbed of commercial investing, has gone through enough bad cycles and implemented laws requiring some personal guarentees for commercial loans. If personal guarentees are standard, anyone know what is going to happen to the borrowers with all of the underwater cali commercial loans going bad now and into the next 3-5 years? There are alot of vacant strip malls out there.

[moneymaker]

Similarly in the family “business” if the husband won’t pay the bill anymore, the wife can’t make him. 😉 Each household member could be considered a separate LLC. ;)[/quote]

I don’t think so. Each party is indeed equally liable for any and all debts. No limited liability in a marriage.

[moneymaker]

Similarly in the family “business” if the husband won’t pay the bill anymore, the wife can’t make him. 😉 Each household member could be considered a separate LLC. ;)[/quote]

I don’t think so. Each party is indeed equally liable for any and all debts. No limited liability in a marriage.

[moneymaker]

Similarly in the family “business” if the husband won’t pay the bill anymore, the wife can’t make him. 😉 Each household member could be considered a separate LLC. ;)[/quote]

I don’t think so. Each party is indeed equally liable for any and all debts. No limited liability in a marriage.

[moneymaker]

Similarly in the family “business” if the husband won’t pay the bill anymore, the wife can’t make him. 😉 Each household member could be considered a separate LLC. ;)[/quote]

I don’t think so. Each party is indeed equally liable for any and all debts. No limited liability in a marriage.

[moneymaker]

Similarly in the family “business” if the husband won’t pay the bill anymore, the wife can’t make him. 😉 Each household member could be considered a separate LLC. ;)[/quote]

I don’t think so. Each party is indeed equally liable for any and all debts. No limited liability in a marriage.

[briansd1]

[quote=threadkiller]
I don’t think so. Each party is indeed equally liable for any and all debts. No limited liability in a marriage.[/quote]

You are correct.

But when it comes to debts and money, two principles apply:
1/ Can’t get blood out of a turnip.
2/ So sue me (if you can be successful).

I personally don’t see why individual homeowners who are already hurting should be held to higher moral/ethical standard and be expected to pay, whereas commercial owners can find legal ways to walk.

Commercial property owners are wealthy individuals; so morally, they should be expected to reach into their personal pockets to pay debts.

[briansd1]

[quote=threadkiller]
I don’t think so. Each party is indeed equally liable for any and all debts. No limited liability in a marriage.[/quote]

You are correct.

But when it comes to debts and money, two principles apply:
1/ Can’t get blood out of a turnip.
2/ So sue me (if you can be successful).

I personally don’t see why individual homeowners who are already hurting should be held to higher moral/ethical standard and be expected to pay, whereas commercial owners can find legal ways to walk.

Commercial property owners are wealthy individuals; so morally, they should be expected to reach into their personal pockets to pay debts.

[briansd1]

[quote=threadkiller]
I don’t think so. Each party is indeed equally liable for any and all debts. No limited liability in a marriage.[/quote]

You are correct.

But when it comes to debts and money, two principles apply:
1/ Can’t get blood out of a turnip.
2/ So sue me (if you can be successful).

I personally don’t see why individual homeowners who are already hurting should be held to higher moral/ethical standard and be expected to pay, whereas commercial owners can find legal ways to walk.

Commercial property owners are wealthy individuals; so morally, they should be expected to reach into their personal pockets to pay debts.

[briansd1]

[quote=threadkiller]
I don’t think so. Each party is indeed equally liable for any and all debts. No limited liability in a marriage.[/quote]

You are correct.

But when it comes to debts and money, two principles apply:
1/ Can’t get blood out of a turnip.
2/ So sue me (if you can be successful).

I personally don’t see why individual homeowners who are already hurting should be held to higher moral/ethical standard and be expected to pay, whereas commercial owners can find legal ways to walk.

Commercial property owners are wealthy individuals; so morally, they should be expected to reach into their personal pockets to pay debts.

[briansd1]

[quote=threadkiller]
I don’t think so. Each party is indeed equally liable for any and all debts. No limited liability in a marriage.[/quote]

You are correct.

But when it comes to debts and money, two principles apply:
1/ Can’t get blood out of a turnip.
2/ So sue me (if you can be successful).

I personally don’t see why individual homeowners who are already hurting should be held to higher moral/ethical standard and be expected to pay, whereas commercial owners can find legal ways to walk.

Commercial property owners are wealthy individuals; so morally, they should be expected to reach into their personal pockets to pay debts.

[Kingside]

There is no California law that requires guarantees for commercial loans, but I am involved in a situation where in connection with the negoiation of a commercial work out, the lender is trying to take the position that a guarantee is required by federal regulators as part of a work out under the interagency “delay and pray” commercial workout guidance that came out last October:

http://www.ncua.gov/letters/2010/CU/10-CU-07%20attachment.pdf

That guidance gives some considerable emphasis to consideration of “The prospects for repayment support from any financially responsible guarantors” as a way for commercial lenders to modify without taking a write down on underwater assets.

[Kingside]

There is no California law that requires guarantees for commercial loans, but I am involved in a situation where in connection with the negoiation of a commercial work out, the lender is trying to take the position that a guarantee is required by federal regulators as part of a work out under the interagency “delay and pray” commercial workout guidance that came out last October:

http://www.ncua.gov/letters/2010/CU/10-CU-07%20attachment.pdf

That guidance gives some considerable emphasis to consideration of “The prospects for repayment support from any financially responsible guarantors” as a way for commercial lenders to modify without taking a write down on underwater assets.

[Kingside]

There is no California law that requires guarantees for commercial loans, but I am involved in a situation where in connection with the negoiation of a commercial work out, the lender is trying to take the position that a guarantee is required by federal regulators as part of a work out under the interagency “delay and pray” commercial workout guidance that came out last October:

http://www.ncua.gov/letters/2010/CU/10-CU-07%20attachment.pdf

That guidance gives some considerable emphasis to consideration of “The prospects for repayment support from any financially responsible guarantors” as a way for commercial lenders to modify without taking a write down on underwater assets.

[Kingside]

There is no California law that requires guarantees for commercial loans, but I am involved in a situation where in connection with the negoiation of a commercial work out, the lender is trying to take the position that a guarantee is required by federal regulators as part of a work out under the interagency “delay and pray” commercial workout guidance that came out last October:

http://www.ncua.gov/letters/2010/CU/10-CU-07%20attachment.pdf

That guidance gives some considerable emphasis to consideration of “The prospects for repayment support from any financially responsible guarantors” as a way for commercial lenders to modify without taking a write down on underwater assets.

[Author]

Posts