Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]The owner almost certainly had a will, but from what I know she may have placed everything in trust to her grandkids (also living in the house) and made the daughter/tenant the executor of the trust. For whatever reason, she didn’t use the estate funds to pay the mortgage.
Thanks bearishgurl, for the information. It was very helpful.[/quote]
northparkbuyer, if what you say is true here, there is a GOOD REASON why someone would use a “generation-skipping trust” in favor of their grandchildren instead of their own child. IMO, the decedent’s “fatal error” here was appointing her daughter (the “mom”) as executor of that trust as it completely defeated the purpose of it.
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]The owner almost certainly had a will, but from what I know she may have placed everything in trust to her grandkids (also living in the house) and made the daughter/tenant the executor of the trust. For whatever reason, she didn’t use the estate funds to pay the mortgage.
Thanks bearishgurl, for the information. It was very helpful.[/quote]
northparkbuyer, if what you say is true here, there is a GOOD REASON why someone would use a “generation-skipping trust” in favor of their grandchildren instead of their own child. IMO, the decedent’s “fatal error” here was appointing her daughter (the “mom”) as executor of that trust as it completely defeated the purpose of it.
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]The buyer was Chase Merritt LLC.[/quote]
Chase Merritt LLC is a local Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). They are in the business of returning higher than usual dividends to their investors by investigating into and purchasing select trustees deeds, taking possession of the underlying properties and rehabbing them for the market. Their hope is to flip these properties for a profit. I cannot answer how they will handle the eviction on this property but they have a right to possess the property as of today.
[quote=northparkbuyer] . . . I knew the owner who died and I am concerned about the children in the house.[/quote]
northparkbuyer, I hope you don’t mind my saying so, but their “mom” isn’t the “brightest light in the shed.” If she, as a mother of three (minor?) children, actually rec’d any cash proceeds from (her mother’s) estate, you have to ask yourself where that money went and why she is now seeking someone to “pay” her to vacate when she has already received “free rent” for at least a year.
Why don’t you report the family to the County’s HHSA if an eviction notice is posted on the property? If the mom doesn’t catch it in time, it will most likely be posted on a front window or the front door. HHSA will try to place the family in a temporary shelter or place the children in temporary foster care together, if possible, if the mother needs detox or drug rehab. The mother will be assisted to obtain skills and/or employment so she can eventually support her family.
A “cash for keys” payment will likely not get this family very far down the road if the mother uses this $$ for something other than shelter for her family.
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]The buyer was Chase Merritt LLC.[/quote]
Chase Merritt LLC is a local Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). They are in the business of returning higher than usual dividends to their investors by investigating into and purchasing select trustees deeds, taking possession of the underlying properties and rehabbing them for the market. Their hope is to flip these properties for a profit. I cannot answer how they will handle the eviction on this property but they have a right to possess the property as of today.
[quote=northparkbuyer] . . . I knew the owner who died and I am concerned about the children in the house.[/quote]
northparkbuyer, I hope you don’t mind my saying so, but their “mom” isn’t the “brightest light in the shed.” If she, as a mother of three (minor?) children, actually rec’d any cash proceeds from (her mother’s) estate, you have to ask yourself where that money went and why she is now seeking someone to “pay” her to vacate when she has already received “free rent” for at least a year.
Why don’t you report the family to the County’s HHSA if an eviction notice is posted on the property? If the mom doesn’t catch it in time, it will most likely be posted on a front window or the front door. HHSA will try to place the family in a temporary shelter or place the children in temporary foster care together, if possible, if the mother needs detox or drug rehab. The mother will be assisted to obtain skills and/or employment so she can eventually support her family.
A “cash for keys” payment will likely not get this family very far down the road if the mother uses this $$ for something other than shelter for her family.
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]The buyer was Chase Merritt LLC.[/quote]
Chase Merritt LLC is a local Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). They are in the business of returning higher than usual dividends to their investors by investigating into and purchasing select trustees deeds, taking possession of the underlying properties and rehabbing them for the market. Their hope is to flip these properties for a profit. I cannot answer how they will handle the eviction on this property but they have a right to possess the property as of today.
[quote=northparkbuyer] . . . I knew the owner who died and I am concerned about the children in the house.[/quote]
northparkbuyer, I hope you don’t mind my saying so, but their “mom” isn’t the “brightest light in the shed.” If she, as a mother of three (minor?) children, actually rec’d any cash proceeds from (her mother’s) estate, you have to ask yourself where that money went and why she is now seeking someone to “pay” her to vacate when she has already received “free rent” for at least a year.
Why don’t you report the family to the County’s HHSA if an eviction notice is posted on the property? If the mom doesn’t catch it in time, it will most likely be posted on a front window or the front door. HHSA will try to place the family in a temporary shelter or place the children in temporary foster care together, if possible, if the mother needs detox or drug rehab. The mother will be assisted to obtain skills and/or employment so she can eventually support her family.
A “cash for keys” payment will likely not get this family very far down the road if the mother uses this $$ for something other than shelter for her family.
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]The buyer was Chase Merritt LLC.[/quote]
Chase Merritt LLC is a local Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). They are in the business of returning higher than usual dividends to their investors by investigating into and purchasing select trustees deeds, taking possession of the underlying properties and rehabbing them for the market. Their hope is to flip these properties for a profit. I cannot answer how they will handle the eviction on this property but they have a right to possess the property as of today.
[quote=northparkbuyer] . . . I knew the owner who died and I am concerned about the children in the house.[/quote]
northparkbuyer, I hope you don’t mind my saying so, but their “mom” isn’t the “brightest light in the shed.” If she, as a mother of three (minor?) children, actually rec’d any cash proceeds from (her mother’s) estate, you have to ask yourself where that money went and why she is now seeking someone to “pay” her to vacate when she has already received “free rent” for at least a year.
Why don’t you report the family to the County’s HHSA if an eviction notice is posted on the property? If the mom doesn’t catch it in time, it will most likely be posted on a front window or the front door. HHSA will try to place the family in a temporary shelter or place the children in temporary foster care together, if possible, if the mother needs detox or drug rehab. The mother will be assisted to obtain skills and/or employment so she can eventually support her family.
A “cash for keys” payment will likely not get this family very far down the road if the mother uses this $$ for something other than shelter for her family.
Participant[quote=northparkbuyer]The buyer was Chase Merritt LLC.[/quote]
Chase Merritt LLC is a local Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). They are in the business of returning higher than usual dividends to their investors by investigating into and purchasing select trustees deeds, taking possession of the underlying properties and rehabbing them for the market. Their hope is to flip these properties for a profit. I cannot answer how they will handle the eviction on this property but they have a right to possess the property as of today.
[quote=northparkbuyer] . . . I knew the owner who died and I am concerned about the children in the house.[/quote]
northparkbuyer, I hope you don’t mind my saying so, but their “mom” isn’t the “brightest light in the shed.” If she, as a mother of three (minor?) children, actually rec’d any cash proceeds from (her mother’s) estate, you have to ask yourself where that money went and why she is now seeking someone to “pay” her to vacate when she has already received “free rent” for at least a year.
Why don’t you report the family to the County’s HHSA if an eviction notice is posted on the property? If the mom doesn’t catch it in time, it will most likely be posted on a front window or the front door. HHSA will try to place the family in a temporary shelter or place the children in temporary foster care together, if possible, if the mother needs detox or drug rehab. The mother will be assisted to obtain skills and/or employment so she can eventually support her family.
A “cash for keys” payment will likely not get this family very far down the road if the mother uses this $$ for something other than shelter for her family.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Too often the Buyer/Broker agency agreement has been used to the detriment of the buyer. I think a better agreement would be one covering a specific address that was shown to the potential buyer as opposed to a general ‘blanket’ agreement.A short one-pager covering a specific amount of time, protecting the Broker’s time and effort spent in showing the property would be quite reasonable.[/quote]
ucodegen, when I spoke of the Buyer/Broker Agency Agreement, I was talking about it covering a 90-day time frame. It is very easy for an agent to spend a lot of time with a client and their particular needs and then have their buyers run into a shorter skirt, better legs or whoever “spoke to them last” or play footsy with a weekend “open-house agent” they just “happened” upon. Since one in five citizens in the state is a “licensee,” we’re all “bumping into each other” and I could easily lose a “wayward client” I have already shown property to, to a younger “cute” agent with a minute and a half of “experience.” A promise of loyalty when I use my expertise to find exactly what my clients need and is in their best interests to buy is reasonable, IMO.
This is not to say that I’m not attractive, but I’ve seen A LOT of things that female agents (even older agents – LOL) do when showing property in attempt to keep a male client “intrigued” with her or steal him (and his partner, if applic.) away from another agent.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Too often the Buyer/Broker agency agreement has been used to the detriment of the buyer. I think a better agreement would be one covering a specific address that was shown to the potential buyer as opposed to a general ‘blanket’ agreement.A short one-pager covering a specific amount of time, protecting the Broker’s time and effort spent in showing the property would be quite reasonable.[/quote]
ucodegen, when I spoke of the Buyer/Broker Agency Agreement, I was talking about it covering a 90-day time frame. It is very easy for an agent to spend a lot of time with a client and their particular needs and then have their buyers run into a shorter skirt, better legs or whoever “spoke to them last” or play footsy with a weekend “open-house agent” they just “happened” upon. Since one in five citizens in the state is a “licensee,” we’re all “bumping into each other” and I could easily lose a “wayward client” I have already shown property to, to a younger “cute” agent with a minute and a half of “experience.” A promise of loyalty when I use my expertise to find exactly what my clients need and is in their best interests to buy is reasonable, IMO.
This is not to say that I’m not attractive, but I’ve seen A LOT of things that female agents (even older agents – LOL) do when showing property in attempt to keep a male client “intrigued” with her or steal him (and his partner, if applic.) away from another agent.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Too often the Buyer/Broker agency agreement has been used to the detriment of the buyer. I think a better agreement would be one covering a specific address that was shown to the potential buyer as opposed to a general ‘blanket’ agreement.A short one-pager covering a specific amount of time, protecting the Broker’s time and effort spent in showing the property would be quite reasonable.[/quote]
ucodegen, when I spoke of the Buyer/Broker Agency Agreement, I was talking about it covering a 90-day time frame. It is very easy for an agent to spend a lot of time with a client and their particular needs and then have their buyers run into a shorter skirt, better legs or whoever “spoke to them last” or play footsy with a weekend “open-house agent” they just “happened” upon. Since one in five citizens in the state is a “licensee,” we’re all “bumping into each other” and I could easily lose a “wayward client” I have already shown property to, to a younger “cute” agent with a minute and a half of “experience.” A promise of loyalty when I use my expertise to find exactly what my clients need and is in their best interests to buy is reasonable, IMO.
This is not to say that I’m not attractive, but I’ve seen A LOT of things that female agents (even older agents – LOL) do when showing property in attempt to keep a male client “intrigued” with her or steal him (and his partner, if applic.) away from another agent.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Too often the Buyer/Broker agency agreement has been used to the detriment of the buyer. I think a better agreement would be one covering a specific address that was shown to the potential buyer as opposed to a general ‘blanket’ agreement.A short one-pager covering a specific amount of time, protecting the Broker’s time and effort spent in showing the property would be quite reasonable.[/quote]
ucodegen, when I spoke of the Buyer/Broker Agency Agreement, I was talking about it covering a 90-day time frame. It is very easy for an agent to spend a lot of time with a client and their particular needs and then have their buyers run into a shorter skirt, better legs or whoever “spoke to them last” or play footsy with a weekend “open-house agent” they just “happened” upon. Since one in five citizens in the state is a “licensee,” we’re all “bumping into each other” and I could easily lose a “wayward client” I have already shown property to, to a younger “cute” agent with a minute and a half of “experience.” A promise of loyalty when I use my expertise to find exactly what my clients need and is in their best interests to buy is reasonable, IMO.
This is not to say that I’m not attractive, but I’ve seen A LOT of things that female agents (even older agents – LOL) do when showing property in attempt to keep a male client “intrigued” with her or steal him (and his partner, if applic.) away from another agent.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Too often the Buyer/Broker agency agreement has been used to the detriment of the buyer. I think a better agreement would be one covering a specific address that was shown to the potential buyer as opposed to a general ‘blanket’ agreement.A short one-pager covering a specific amount of time, protecting the Broker’s time and effort spent in showing the property would be quite reasonable.[/quote]
ucodegen, when I spoke of the Buyer/Broker Agency Agreement, I was talking about it covering a 90-day time frame. It is very easy for an agent to spend a lot of time with a client and their particular needs and then have their buyers run into a shorter skirt, better legs or whoever “spoke to them last” or play footsy with a weekend “open-house agent” they just “happened” upon. Since one in five citizens in the state is a “licensee,” we’re all “bumping into each other” and I could easily lose a “wayward client” I have already shown property to, to a younger “cute” agent with a minute and a half of “experience.” A promise of loyalty when I use my expertise to find exactly what my clients need and is in their best interests to buy is reasonable, IMO.
This is not to say that I’m not attractive, but I’ve seen A LOT of things that female agents (even older agents – LOL) do when showing property in attempt to keep a male client “intrigued” with her or steal him (and his partner, if applic.) away from another agent.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]”Californians that claimed the mortgage interest rate deduction saved an average of almost $20,000 from their tax bill in 2008, according to a Tax Foundation analysis of new data from the Internal Revenue Service. ”
http://tinyurl.com/2ablhte
[/quote]Wow, FSD, acc. to your chart, CA taxpayers had the highest real estate indebtedness (showing up in the form of tax deductions) of ALL the states, even more than Mass. and NY, which are typically high-priced markets. This fact doesn’t necessarily speak to the most “wealth” here but rather the most “debt” or largest RE “debt-load.”
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]”Californians that claimed the mortgage interest rate deduction saved an average of almost $20,000 from their tax bill in 2008, according to a Tax Foundation analysis of new data from the Internal Revenue Service. ”
http://tinyurl.com/2ablhte
[/quote]Wow, FSD, acc. to your chart, CA taxpayers had the highest real estate indebtedness (showing up in the form of tax deductions) of ALL the states, even more than Mass. and NY, which are typically high-priced markets. This fact doesn’t necessarily speak to the most “wealth” here but rather the most “debt” or largest RE “debt-load.”
-
AuthorPosts
