[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]sdr not sure what you are seeing but I am seeing the seconds being a hell of alot more assholish this past year. Two of them I had to wrangle with said that they don’t give a sh-t because they have charged off the money already as compared to 2007 and early 2008 where they were more content to take the morsels tossed to them by the first.[/quote]

Out of curiosity was this Gmac, HSBC or wells?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]sdr not sure what you are seeing but I am seeing the seconds being a hell of alot more assholish this past year. Two of them I had to wrangle with said that they don’t give a sh-t because they have charged off the money already as compared to 2007 and early 2008 where they were more content to take the morsels tossed to them by the first.[/quote]

Out of curiosity was this Gmac, HSBC or wells?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Actually UR what she said about the law that Obama signed into law is true. If she has the hardcopy of the lease it is even better. Yes it is accurate for CA properties.

Also if the property does go back to the bene at trustee sale or if it is sold to a private party, the tenant has the same rights. See Obamas laws so yes she can wave that lease in front of the new owner. She does have to PAY RENT and abide by the terms of the lease.

Sorry the lease is not wiped out given what Obama has signed into law.

Also what I told the poster was that on Realist there was not an official notice of default, and that the current owner could very well have missed several payments.

Here UR this may help you provide better advice regarding the new law Obama signed rather then obselete information:

http://www.tenantstogether.org/article.php?id=723%5B/quote%5D

You are correct.

This is what happens when I leave the country for several weeks.
Get behind on the laws.

That’s huge and very relevant.
I don’t know how I missed it.
Probably the going out of the country thing…

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30064.html

PHRACK.
I hate being that wrong that publicly.

But I have to say that when you’re right you’re right.

Sorry Fereina.
Adam, whom I often disagree with$, was exactly right in this case.

SO were you.

Good luck.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Actually UR what she said about the law that Obama signed into law is true. If she has the hardcopy of the lease it is even better. Yes it is accurate for CA properties.

Also if the property does go back to the bene at trustee sale or if it is sold to a private party, the tenant has the same rights. See Obamas laws so yes she can wave that lease in front of the new owner. She does have to PAY RENT and abide by the terms of the lease.

Sorry the lease is not wiped out given what Obama has signed into law.

Also what I told the poster was that on Realist there was not an official notice of default, and that the current owner could very well have missed several payments.

Here UR this may help you provide better advice regarding the new law Obama signed rather then obselete information:

http://www.tenantstogether.org/article.php?id=723%5B/quote%5D

You are correct.

This is what happens when I leave the country for several weeks.
Get behind on the laws.

That’s huge and very relevant.
I don’t know how I missed it.
Probably the going out of the country thing…

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30064.html

PHRACK.
I hate being that wrong that publicly.

But I have to say that when you’re right you’re right.

Sorry Fereina.
Adam, whom I often disagree with$, was exactly right in this case.

SO were you.

Good luck.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Actually UR what she said about the law that Obama signed into law is true. If she has the hardcopy of the lease it is even better. Yes it is accurate for CA properties.

Also if the property does go back to the bene at trustee sale or if it is sold to a private party, the tenant has the same rights. See Obamas laws so yes she can wave that lease in front of the new owner. She does have to PAY RENT and abide by the terms of the lease.

Sorry the lease is not wiped out given what Obama has signed into law.

Also what I told the poster was that on Realist there was not an official notice of default, and that the current owner could very well have missed several payments.

Here UR this may help you provide better advice regarding the new law Obama signed rather then obselete information:

http://www.tenantstogether.org/article.php?id=723%5B/quote%5D

You are correct.

This is what happens when I leave the country for several weeks.
Get behind on the laws.

That’s huge and very relevant.
I don’t know how I missed it.
Probably the going out of the country thing…

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30064.html

PHRACK.
I hate being that wrong that publicly.

But I have to say that when you’re right you’re right.

Sorry Fereina.
Adam, whom I often disagree with$, was exactly right in this case.

SO were you.

Good luck.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Actually UR what she said about the law that Obama signed into law is true. If she has the hardcopy of the lease it is even better. Yes it is accurate for CA properties.

Also if the property does go back to the bene at trustee sale or if it is sold to a private party, the tenant has the same rights. See Obamas laws so yes she can wave that lease in front of the new owner. She does have to PAY RENT and abide by the terms of the lease.

Sorry the lease is not wiped out given what Obama has signed into law.

Also what I told the poster was that on Realist there was not an official notice of default, and that the current owner could very well have missed several payments.

Here UR this may help you provide better advice regarding the new law Obama signed rather then obselete information:

http://www.tenantstogether.org/article.php?id=723%5B/quote%5D

You are correct.

This is what happens when I leave the country for several weeks.
Get behind on the laws.

That’s huge and very relevant.
I don’t know how I missed it.
Probably the going out of the country thing…

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30064.html

PHRACK.
I hate being that wrong that publicly.

But I have to say that when you’re right you’re right.

Sorry Fereina.
Adam, whom I often disagree with$, was exactly right in this case.

SO were you.

Good luck.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Actually UR what she said about the law that Obama signed into law is true. If she has the hardcopy of the lease it is even better. Yes it is accurate for CA properties.

Also if the property does go back to the bene at trustee sale or if it is sold to a private party, the tenant has the same rights. See Obamas laws so yes she can wave that lease in front of the new owner. She does have to PAY RENT and abide by the terms of the lease.

Sorry the lease is not wiped out given what Obama has signed into law.

Also what I told the poster was that on Realist there was not an official notice of default, and that the current owner could very well have missed several payments.

Here UR this may help you provide better advice regarding the new law Obama signed rather then obselete information:

http://www.tenantstogether.org/article.php?id=723%5B/quote%5D

You are correct.

This is what happens when I leave the country for several weeks.
Get behind on the laws.

That’s huge and very relevant.
I don’t know how I missed it.
Probably the going out of the country thing…

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30064.html

PHRACK.
I hate being that wrong that publicly.

But I have to say that when you’re right you’re right.

Sorry Fereina.
Adam, whom I often disagree with$, was exactly right in this case.

SO were you.

Good luck.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think this is an easy one.

OK, here’s the problem. It depends if the 2nd is a recourse loan that went to recovery at Chase. If it did they probably want 50 to 80 cents on the dollar which could be alot of money. If thats the case, seller could have said OK I’ll pay the X now instead of being on the hook for 2X later but realized they can just go BK if Chase comesa after them. Another is Chase wanted severa l thousand and seller was willing to pay it but realized they had non-recourse loans and just said F%*K it let em take the house and I’m off for nothing. These are but two of many possible scenarios.

But here is your real problem. Your only real rememedy is to sue for specific performance (i.e. force them to sell you the house). It would take a long time to litigate that. By that time you have one of two problems. The bank already took the house back and the sellers cant sell you the house anymore. The other is what judge would force someone to sell you their house if it meant being on the hook for a huge deficiency balance. So now you can sue for damages. What damages do you really have, maybe a couple thousand at most. If you ask me this is a loser case and I’d say go find another house instead of making oyurself miserable for the next year and paying for some attorney’s Spring Break Ski trip with the family. Of course your attorney thinks you have a good case. He was thinking Big Bear and you just changed his outlook to Vail.[/quote]

LOL.
Awesome.

It’s David right?
Well put dude.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think this is an easy one.

OK, here’s the problem. It depends if the 2nd is a recourse loan that went to recovery at Chase. If it did they probably want 50 to 80 cents on the dollar which could be alot of money. If thats the case, seller could have said OK I’ll pay the X now instead of being on the hook for 2X later but realized they can just go BK if Chase comesa after them. Another is Chase wanted severa l thousand and seller was willing to pay it but realized they had non-recourse loans and just said F%*K it let em take the house and I’m off for nothing. These are but two of many possible scenarios.

But here is your real problem. Your only real rememedy is to sue for specific performance (i.e. force them to sell you the house). It would take a long time to litigate that. By that time you have one of two problems. The bank already took the house back and the sellers cant sell you the house anymore. The other is what judge would force someone to sell you their house if it meant being on the hook for a huge deficiency balance. So now you can sue for damages. What damages do you really have, maybe a couple thousand at most. If you ask me this is a loser case and I’d say go find another house instead of making oyurself miserable for the next year and paying for some attorney’s Spring Break Ski trip with the family. Of course your attorney thinks you have a good case. He was thinking Big Bear and you just changed his outlook to Vail.[/quote]

LOL.
Awesome.

It’s David right?
Well put dude.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think this is an easy one.

OK, here’s the problem. It depends if the 2nd is a recourse loan that went to recovery at Chase. If it did they probably want 50 to 80 cents on the dollar which could be alot of money. If thats the case, seller could have said OK I’ll pay the X now instead of being on the hook for 2X later but realized they can just go BK if Chase comesa after them. Another is Chase wanted severa l thousand and seller was willing to pay it but realized they had non-recourse loans and just said F%*K it let em take the house and I’m off for nothing. These are but two of many possible scenarios.

But here is your real problem. Your only real rememedy is to sue for specific performance (i.e. force them to sell you the house). It would take a long time to litigate that. By that time you have one of two problems. The bank already took the house back and the sellers cant sell you the house anymore. The other is what judge would force someone to sell you their house if it meant being on the hook for a huge deficiency balance. So now you can sue for damages. What damages do you really have, maybe a couple thousand at most. If you ask me this is a loser case and I’d say go find another house instead of making oyurself miserable for the next year and paying for some attorney’s Spring Break Ski trip with the family. Of course your attorney thinks you have a good case. He was thinking Big Bear and you just changed his outlook to Vail.[/quote]

LOL.
Awesome.

It’s David right?
Well put dude.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think this is an easy one.

OK, here’s the problem. It depends if the 2nd is a recourse loan that went to recovery at Chase. If it did they probably want 50 to 80 cents on the dollar which could be alot of money. If thats the case, seller could have said OK I’ll pay the X now instead of being on the hook for 2X later but realized they can just go BK if Chase comesa after them. Another is Chase wanted severa l thousand and seller was willing to pay it but realized they had non-recourse loans and just said F%*K it let em take the house and I’m off for nothing. These are but two of many possible scenarios.

But here is your real problem. Your only real rememedy is to sue for specific performance (i.e. force them to sell you the house). It would take a long time to litigate that. By that time you have one of two problems. The bank already took the house back and the sellers cant sell you the house anymore. The other is what judge would force someone to sell you their house if it meant being on the hook for a huge deficiency balance. So now you can sue for damages. What damages do you really have, maybe a couple thousand at most. If you ask me this is a loser case and I’d say go find another house instead of making oyurself miserable for the next year and paying for some attorney’s Spring Break Ski trip with the family. Of course your attorney thinks you have a good case. He was thinking Big Bear and you just changed his outlook to Vail.[/quote]

LOL.
Awesome.

It’s David right?
Well put dude.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]I think this is an easy one.

OK, here’s the problem. It depends if the 2nd is a recourse loan that went to recovery at Chase. If it did they probably want 50 to 80 cents on the dollar which could be alot of money. If thats the case, seller could have said OK I’ll pay the X now instead of being on the hook for 2X later but realized they can just go BK if Chase comesa after them. Another is Chase wanted severa l thousand and seller was willing to pay it but realized they had non-recourse loans and just said F%*K it let em take the house and I’m off for nothing. These are but two of many possible scenarios.

But here is your real problem. Your only real rememedy is to sue for specific performance (i.e. force them to sell you the house). It would take a long time to litigate that. By that time you have one of two problems. The bank already took the house back and the sellers cant sell you the house anymore. The other is what judge would force someone to sell you their house if it meant being on the hook for a huge deficiency balance. So now you can sue for damages. What damages do you really have, maybe a couple thousand at most. If you ask me this is a loser case and I’d say go find another house instead of making oyurself miserable for the next year and paying for some attorney’s Spring Break Ski trip with the family. Of course your attorney thinks you have a good case. He was thinking Big Bear and you just changed his outlook to Vail.[/quote]

LOL.
Awesome.

It’s David right?
Well put dude.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=feraina]Okay, so I looked up the laws a little more. The CA law has been superseded by a federal law Obama signed into law on May, 2009 (is that the best concrete thing he’s done so far?), which states that tenant of a foreclosed property has the right to stay until the end of the lease, or if it is month-to-month, then the renter has to be given at least 90-day notice by the new owner to move out. The only exception is if the new owner plans to move in and live there, then the new owner can terminate the lease with 90-day notice even if the original was for longer.
[/quote]
You need to check that info.
I am pretty sure it is not accurate for current CA practices.
[quote=feraina]
Since it’s a foreclosure property, majority of properties go to the lender, so they wouldn’t be living in it; I guess it is only the case if a third-party buys it at the courthouse, is that right?

I also found out that CA state laws state that the lease survives a sale (I suppose whether conventional or short), no exceptions as far as I can see.
[/quote]
Uhhhh. No.

The lease is an encumbrance on real property (like a second or HOA lien) and is wiped out by foreclosure and repo (unlike a normal sale).

It would survive a short sale.
[quote=feraina]
So I talked to my landlord, and here’s his situation. Not only is he upside down on this unit but he’s undergoing divorce, and he is at break-even for his “primary residence” (which his separated wife refuses to move out of), as his equity was entirely canceled out by depreciation. The guy is just too nice, they separated 2.5 years ago, and he’s still paying all the mortgages, taxes, bills, and repairs at the house she wouldn’t move out of, while he rents a place with his new gf. The unit I’m renting he did 80/20, but it was neg-am, and now he owes $50K more than his purchasing price and is probably $150K+ over market value (60%). His lenders will apparently consider re-fi him on this, wipe out the 2nd; they seem more open to re-fi’s when there’s a divorce involved. So he’ll probably try to start the re-fi process soon, and that probably means he’ll have to miss a few payments first… He also just extended my lease by a month while he talks more with his lender.

He offered me to go on month-to-month, but I am still leaning toward signing a longer-term lease with him, even though he’s undergoing all his financial turmoil, given that my lease is protected whether it’s a sale or foreclosure.
[/quote]
Its not.
You get 60 days rent free from the date of the trustee sale.
[quote=feraina]
If the new owners refuse to repair the unit, I can always repair and deduct from rent myself under CA tenancy laws…
[/quote]That is true.
[quote=feraina]And I think he will continue to be a good landlord, as he has been so far, as long as he is still the owner. Also, both short-sale and foreclosure will take a very long time to happen, especially given all the government interventions. And I think he’s far too under-water to do a regular sale. And in the worst case, if for some miraculous reason it happens quickly for this place, I would still have at least 90 days to find a new place.
[/quote]
60
[quote=feraina]
Does anyone see any good reason that I shouldn’t try to persuade him for a long-term lease (at least 9 months)?
[/quote]
Yeah.
The fact that you are dealing with info that is inaccurate.
Here is a good link to have:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/index.shtml
[quote=feraina]
ETA: and oh, yeah, with SDR’s help I found out that he’s not officially delinquent yet.[/quote]

Wrong.
Delinquency is private record (so you really don’t know). Default is public record. He could have stopped paying 5 months ago and you would still not know if the bank is filing the NOD slowly.
[quote=feraina] It’s actually kinda amazing he’s kept up the payments so far, given the two mortgages, an expensive wouldn’t-go-away-ex-wife to support, divorce lawyer bills, and reduced income (he’s a contractor).[/quote]

You should really stop thinking about his welfare and be ready to stop paying. Honestly, the worst that will happen is that you will lose your place and get 60 days free rent.

Good luck to you.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=feraina]Okay, so I looked up the laws a little more. The CA law has been superseded by a federal law Obama signed into law on May, 2009 (is that the best concrete thing he’s done so far?), which states that tenant of a foreclosed property has the right to stay until the end of the lease, or if it is month-to-month, then the renter has to be given at least 90-day notice by the new owner to move out. The only exception is if the new owner plans to move in and live there, then the new owner can terminate the lease with 90-day notice even if the original was for longer.
[/quote]
You need to check that info.
I am pretty sure it is not accurate for current CA practices.
[quote=feraina]
Since it’s a foreclosure property, majority of properties go to the lender, so they wouldn’t be living in it; I guess it is only the case if a third-party buys it at the courthouse, is that right?

I also found out that CA state laws state that the lease survives a sale (I suppose whether conventional or short), no exceptions as far as I can see.
[/quote]
Uhhhh. No.

The lease is an encumbrance on real property (like a second or HOA lien) and is wiped out by foreclosure and repo (unlike a normal sale).

It would survive a short sale.
[quote=feraina]
So I talked to my landlord, and here’s his situation. Not only is he upside down on this unit but he’s undergoing divorce, and he is at break-even for his “primary residence” (which his separated wife refuses to move out of), as his equity was entirely canceled out by depreciation. The guy is just too nice, they separated 2.5 years ago, and he’s still paying all the mortgages, taxes, bills, and repairs at the house she wouldn’t move out of, while he rents a place with his new gf. The unit I’m renting he did 80/20, but it was neg-am, and now he owes $50K more than his purchasing price and is probably $150K+ over market value (60%). His lenders will apparently consider re-fi him on this, wipe out the 2nd; they seem more open to re-fi’s when there’s a divorce involved. So he’ll probably try to start the re-fi process soon, and that probably means he’ll have to miss a few payments first… He also just extended my lease by a month while he talks more with his lender.

He offered me to go on month-to-month, but I am still leaning toward signing a longer-term lease with him, even though he’s undergoing all his financial turmoil, given that my lease is protected whether it’s a sale or foreclosure.
[/quote]
Its not.
You get 60 days rent free from the date of the trustee sale.
[quote=feraina]
If the new owners refuse to repair the unit, I can always repair and deduct from rent myself under CA tenancy laws…
[/quote]That is true.
[quote=feraina]And I think he will continue to be a good landlord, as he has been so far, as long as he is still the owner. Also, both short-sale and foreclosure will take a very long time to happen, especially given all the government interventions. And I think he’s far too under-water to do a regular sale. And in the worst case, if for some miraculous reason it happens quickly for this place, I would still have at least 90 days to find a new place.
[/quote]
60
[quote=feraina]
Does anyone see any good reason that I shouldn’t try to persuade him for a long-term lease (at least 9 months)?
[/quote]
Yeah.
The fact that you are dealing with info that is inaccurate.
Here is a good link to have:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/index.shtml
[quote=feraina]
ETA: and oh, yeah, with SDR’s help I found out that he’s not officially delinquent yet.[/quote]

Wrong.
Delinquency is private record (so you really don’t know). Default is public record. He could have stopped paying 5 months ago and you would still not know if the bank is filing the NOD slowly.
[quote=feraina] It’s actually kinda amazing he’s kept up the payments so far, given the two mortgages, an expensive wouldn’t-go-away-ex-wife to support, divorce lawyer bills, and reduced income (he’s a contractor).[/quote]

You should really stop thinking about his welfare and be ready to stop paying. Honestly, the worst that will happen is that you will lose your place and get 60 days free rent.

Good luck to you.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=feraina]Okay, so I looked up the laws a little more. The CA law has been superseded by a federal law Obama signed into law on May, 2009 (is that the best concrete thing he’s done so far?), which states that tenant of a foreclosed property has the right to stay until the end of the lease, or if it is month-to-month, then the renter has to be given at least 90-day notice by the new owner to move out. The only exception is if the new owner plans to move in and live there, then the new owner can terminate the lease with 90-day notice even if the original was for longer.
[/quote]
You need to check that info.
I am pretty sure it is not accurate for current CA practices.
[quote=feraina]
Since it’s a foreclosure property, majority of properties go to the lender, so they wouldn’t be living in it; I guess it is only the case if a third-party buys it at the courthouse, is that right?

I also found out that CA state laws state that the lease survives a sale (I suppose whether conventional or short), no exceptions as far as I can see.
[/quote]
Uhhhh. No.

The lease is an encumbrance on real property (like a second or HOA lien) and is wiped out by foreclosure and repo (unlike a normal sale).

It would survive a short sale.
[quote=feraina]
So I talked to my landlord, and here’s his situation. Not only is he upside down on this unit but he’s undergoing divorce, and he is at break-even for his “primary residence” (which his separated wife refuses to move out of), as his equity was entirely canceled out by depreciation. The guy is just too nice, they separated 2.5 years ago, and he’s still paying all the mortgages, taxes, bills, and repairs at the house she wouldn’t move out of, while he rents a place with his new gf. The unit I’m renting he did 80/20, but it was neg-am, and now he owes $50K more than his purchasing price and is probably $150K+ over market value (60%). His lenders will apparently consider re-fi him on this, wipe out the 2nd; they seem more open to re-fi’s when there’s a divorce involved. So he’ll probably try to start the re-fi process soon, and that probably means he’ll have to miss a few payments first… He also just extended my lease by a month while he talks more with his lender.

He offered me to go on month-to-month, but I am still leaning toward signing a longer-term lease with him, even though he’s undergoing all his financial turmoil, given that my lease is protected whether it’s a sale or foreclosure.
[/quote]
Its not.
You get 60 days rent free from the date of the trustee sale.
[quote=feraina]
If the new owners refuse to repair the unit, I can always repair and deduct from rent myself under CA tenancy laws…
[/quote]That is true.
[quote=feraina]And I think he will continue to be a good landlord, as he has been so far, as long as he is still the owner. Also, both short-sale and foreclosure will take a very long time to happen, especially given all the government interventions. And I think he’s far too under-water to do a regular sale. And in the worst case, if for some miraculous reason it happens quickly for this place, I would still have at least 90 days to find a new place.
[/quote]
60
[quote=feraina]
Does anyone see any good reason that I shouldn’t try to persuade him for a long-term lease (at least 9 months)?
[/quote]
Yeah.
The fact that you are dealing with info that is inaccurate.
Here is a good link to have:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/index.shtml
[quote=feraina]
ETA: and oh, yeah, with SDR’s help I found out that he’s not officially delinquent yet.[/quote]

Wrong.
Delinquency is private record (so you really don’t know). Default is public record. He could have stopped paying 5 months ago and you would still not know if the bank is filing the NOD slowly.
[quote=feraina] It’s actually kinda amazing he’s kept up the payments so far, given the two mortgages, an expensive wouldn’t-go-away-ex-wife to support, divorce lawyer bills, and reduced income (he’s a contractor).[/quote]

You should really stop thinking about his welfare and be ready to stop paying. Honestly, the worst that will happen is that you will lose your place and get 60 days free rent.

Good luck to you.

[Author]

Posts