[ltokuda]

I’m also thinking about investing in Riverside rental properties. My basic idea would be to buy a fixer-upper in cash. Do some basic improvements, then rent it out. However, I would like to pull equity out of the house as soon as possible so that I can use the money to buy another property.

Anyone know how soon I could do this after getting a renter moved in? Can you think of any problems I might run into trying to do this?

[ltokuda]

I’m also thinking about investing in Riverside rental properties. My basic idea would be to buy a fixer-upper in cash. Do some basic improvements, then rent it out. However, I would like to pull equity out of the house as soon as possible so that I can use the money to buy another property.

Anyone know how soon I could do this after getting a renter moved in? Can you think of any problems I might run into trying to do this?

[ltokuda]

The kitchen and bathroom are two places where you can actually get a positive return on investment (ROI) by doing a remodel (in case you ever need to sell your house in the future). But to get that kind of ROI, you need do the right amount of improvements. If you spend too little, you may not get a good ROI. The same is true if you spend too much.

The amount you “should” spend to get the best ROI will depend on the neighborhood you live in. A good realtor should be able to tell you what kind of improvements would produce the best ROI for a particular house. They should also be able to give you a ballpark estimate for said improvements. You can start with that and decide if that is good enough for you or not.

[ltokuda]

The kitchen and bathroom are two places where you can actually get a positive return on investment (ROI) by doing a remodel (in case you ever need to sell your house in the future). But to get that kind of ROI, you need do the right amount of improvements. If you spend too little, you may not get a good ROI. The same is true if you spend too much.

The amount you “should” spend to get the best ROI will depend on the neighborhood you live in. A good realtor should be able to tell you what kind of improvements would produce the best ROI for a particular house. They should also be able to give you a ballpark estimate for said improvements. You can start with that and decide if that is good enough for you or not.

[ltokuda]

The kitchen and bathroom are two places where you can actually get a positive return on investment (ROI) by doing a remodel (in case you ever need to sell your house in the future). But to get that kind of ROI, you need do the right amount of improvements. If you spend too little, you may not get a good ROI. The same is true if you spend too much.

The amount you “should” spend to get the best ROI will depend on the neighborhood you live in. A good realtor should be able to tell you what kind of improvements would produce the best ROI for a particular house. They should also be able to give you a ballpark estimate for said improvements. You can start with that and decide if that is good enough for you or not.

[ltokuda]

The kitchen and bathroom are two places where you can actually get a positive return on investment (ROI) by doing a remodel (in case you ever need to sell your house in the future). But to get that kind of ROI, you need do the right amount of improvements. If you spend too little, you may not get a good ROI. The same is true if you spend too much.

The amount you “should” spend to get the best ROI will depend on the neighborhood you live in. A good realtor should be able to tell you what kind of improvements would produce the best ROI for a particular house. They should also be able to give you a ballpark estimate for said improvements. You can start with that and decide if that is good enough for you or not.

[ltokuda]

The kitchen and bathroom are two places where you can actually get a positive return on investment (ROI) by doing a remodel (in case you ever need to sell your house in the future). But to get that kind of ROI, you need do the right amount of improvements. If you spend too little, you may not get a good ROI. The same is true if you spend too much.

The amount you “should” spend to get the best ROI will depend on the neighborhood you live in. A good realtor should be able to tell you what kind of improvements would produce the best ROI for a particular house. They should also be able to give you a ballpark estimate for said improvements. You can start with that and decide if that is good enough for you or not.

[ltokuda]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.[/quote]

This quote:

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

clearly states that MERS is listed on the trust deeds (at the county recorders office) as the beneficiary of the note.

However, Bates successfully argued that MERS is NOT a legal beneficiary of the promissory note because it has no financial interest in it. So in spite of what the trust deed says, MERS does not qualify as a beneficiary under Utah law.

[ltokuda]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.[/quote]

This quote:

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

clearly states that MERS is listed on the trust deeds (at the county recorders office) as the beneficiary of the note.

However, Bates successfully argued that MERS is NOT a legal beneficiary of the promissory note because it has no financial interest in it. So in spite of what the trust deed says, MERS does not qualify as a beneficiary under Utah law.

[ltokuda]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.[/quote]

This quote:

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

clearly states that MERS is listed on the trust deeds (at the county recorders office) as the beneficiary of the note.

However, Bates successfully argued that MERS is NOT a legal beneficiary of the promissory note because it has no financial interest in it. So in spite of what the trust deed says, MERS does not qualify as a beneficiary under Utah law.

[ltokuda]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.[/quote]

This quote:

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

clearly states that MERS is listed on the trust deeds (at the county recorders office) as the beneficiary of the note.

However, Bates successfully argued that MERS is NOT a legal beneficiary of the promissory note because it has no financial interest in it. So in spite of what the trust deed says, MERS does not qualify as a beneficiary under Utah law.

[ltokuda]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.[/quote]

This quote:

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

clearly states that MERS is listed on the trust deeds (at the county recorders office) as the beneficiary of the note.

However, Bates successfully argued that MERS is NOT a legal beneficiary of the promissory note because it has no financial interest in it. So in spite of what the trust deed says, MERS does not qualify as a beneficiary under Utah law.

[ltokuda]

The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.

[ltokuda]

The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.

[ltokuda]

The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.

[Author]

Posts