Corporation Using UCC-1 to Stall Foreclosure for up to 36 months

[Deal Hunter]

Has anyone heard of this? Is this a scam?

I just got a call from an attorney claiming to have a way to keep lenders off a homeowner’s back for up to 36 months. The process involves the use of a corporate entity like a c-corp or an LLC. The homeowner would be the “owner”/shareholder of the corporation, but the attorney would be the officer of record.

The new corporation would then put a lien (UCC-1) on the property that is about to be foreclosed. He didn’t give details of the process after that. It sounds like an illegal scheme to me, but has anyone heard of this? The attorney is charging $900 to form the entity and record the lien. He claims that it can stall the foreclosure of the house for up to 36 months.

I thought that a UCC-1 is only applicable to commercial property or activity. Can this be used to encumber a primary residence at all?

?????

[SD Realtor]

Deal Hunter I posted about a somewhat similar method with a recently sold home in Carmel Valley. This home recently went REO as the lender finally put a stop to it. So basically the homeowner would setup corporations in Los Angeles. He would then transfer a partial interest in the home to the corporation. Then he would try to shield the home from foreclosure because the corporation would declare bankruptcy. This served a purpose in forcing the lender to get a deficiency judgement in the county where the corporation was. Once the judgement was passed, the seller would then setup another corp and do the exact same thing. Again an attorney would be the officer of record.

For the Carmel Valley home I am talking about they were able to delay foreclosure by about 9 months. By the 4th time, the lender was able to show the county judge that the home could not be protected under bankruptcy protection.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Deal Hunter I posted about a somewhat similar method with a recently sold home in Carmel Valley. This home recently went REO as the lender finally put a stop to it. So basically the homeowner would setup corporations in Los Angeles. He would then transfer a partial interest in the home to the corporation. Then he would try to shield the home from foreclosure because the corporation would declare bankruptcy. This served a purpose in forcing the lender to get a deficiency judgement in the county where the corporation was. Once the judgement was passed, the seller would then setup another corp and do the exact same thing. Again an attorney would be the officer of record.

For the Carmel Valley home I am talking about they were able to delay foreclosure by about 9 months. By the 4th time, the lender was able to show the county judge that the home could not be protected under bankruptcy protection.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Deal Hunter I posted about a somewhat similar method with a recently sold home in Carmel Valley. This home recently went REO as the lender finally put a stop to it. So basically the homeowner would setup corporations in Los Angeles. He would then transfer a partial interest in the home to the corporation. Then he would try to shield the home from foreclosure because the corporation would declare bankruptcy. This served a purpose in forcing the lender to get a deficiency judgement in the county where the corporation was. Once the judgement was passed, the seller would then setup another corp and do the exact same thing. Again an attorney would be the officer of record.

For the Carmel Valley home I am talking about they were able to delay foreclosure by about 9 months. By the 4th time, the lender was able to show the county judge that the home could not be protected under bankruptcy protection.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Deal Hunter I posted about a somewhat similar method with a recently sold home in Carmel Valley. This home recently went REO as the lender finally put a stop to it. So basically the homeowner would setup corporations in Los Angeles. He would then transfer a partial interest in the home to the corporation. Then he would try to shield the home from foreclosure because the corporation would declare bankruptcy. This served a purpose in forcing the lender to get a deficiency judgement in the county where the corporation was. Once the judgement was passed, the seller would then setup another corp and do the exact same thing. Again an attorney would be the officer of record.

For the Carmel Valley home I am talking about they were able to delay foreclosure by about 9 months. By the 4th time, the lender was able to show the county judge that the home could not be protected under bankruptcy protection.

SD Realtor

[SD Realtor]

Deal Hunter I posted about a somewhat similar method with a recently sold home in Carmel Valley. This home recently went REO as the lender finally put a stop to it. So basically the homeowner would setup corporations in Los Angeles. He would then transfer a partial interest in the home to the corporation. Then he would try to shield the home from foreclosure because the corporation would declare bankruptcy. This served a purpose in forcing the lender to get a deficiency judgement in the county where the corporation was. Once the judgement was passed, the seller would then setup another corp and do the exact same thing. Again an attorney would be the officer of record.

For the Carmel Valley home I am talking about they were able to delay foreclosure by about 9 months. By the 4th time, the lender was able to show the county judge that the home could not be protected under bankruptcy protection.

SD Realtor

[Mayer]

Sounds like a variation of this crap that’s been going on since 1999 to me:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=145

[Mayer]

Sounds like a variation of this crap that’s been going on since 1999 to me:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=145

[Mayer]

Sounds like a variation of this crap that’s been going on since 1999 to me:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=145

[Mayer]

Sounds like a variation of this crap that’s been going on since 1999 to me:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=145

[Mayer]

Sounds like a variation of this crap that’s been going on since 1999 to me:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=145

[sdduuuude]

I have always wondered if you couldn’t use a corporation to avoid the property tax increase.

Use a corporation to buy the house, then instead of selling the house at an increased basis, sell the corporation to the new owner.

I have always assumed something in the law prevents this, but always wondered.

[sdduuuude]

I have always wondered if you couldn’t use a corporation to avoid the property tax increase.

Use a corporation to buy the house, then instead of selling the house at an increased basis, sell the corporation to the new owner.

I have always assumed something in the law prevents this, but always wondered.

[sdduuuude]

I have always wondered if you couldn’t use a corporation to avoid the property tax increase.

Use a corporation to buy the house, then instead of selling the house at an increased basis, sell the corporation to the new owner.

I have always assumed something in the law prevents this, but always wondered.

[sdduuuude]

I have always wondered if you couldn’t use a corporation to avoid the property tax increase.

Use a corporation to buy the house, then instead of selling the house at an increased basis, sell the corporation to the new owner.

I have always assumed something in the law prevents this, but always wondered.

[Author]

Posts