[urbanrealtor]

dupe

[urbanrealtor]

dupe

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=threadkiller]Somebody or entity somewhere owns these houses. Ownership can’t change without a paper trail, that’s to protect against fraud. The right of redemption however I’m less clear on. What if someone gets foreclosed on and then before a year is up wins the lottery and wants their house back. You know it’s going to happen to someone in CA someday.I’m guessing all monies would have to retrace, no harm / no foul. The new buyers would just have to happy to get their money back?[/quote]
That would be true in a mortgage repo or a judicial foreclosure.
However, California went to trust deeds and non-judicial about 30 years ago.
There is no right of redemption for most California repos.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=threadkiller]Somebody or entity somewhere owns these houses. Ownership can’t change without a paper trail, that’s to protect against fraud. The right of redemption however I’m less clear on. What if someone gets foreclosed on and then before a year is up wins the lottery and wants their house back. You know it’s going to happen to someone in CA someday.I’m guessing all monies would have to retrace, no harm / no foul. The new buyers would just have to happy to get their money back?[/quote]
That would be true in a mortgage repo or a judicial foreclosure.
However, California went to trust deeds and non-judicial about 30 years ago.
There is no right of redemption for most California repos.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=threadkiller]Somebody or entity somewhere owns these houses. Ownership can’t change without a paper trail, that’s to protect against fraud. The right of redemption however I’m less clear on. What if someone gets foreclosed on and then before a year is up wins the lottery and wants their house back. You know it’s going to happen to someone in CA someday.I’m guessing all monies would have to retrace, no harm / no foul. The new buyers would just have to happy to get their money back?[/quote]
That would be true in a mortgage repo or a judicial foreclosure.
However, California went to trust deeds and non-judicial about 30 years ago.
There is no right of redemption for most California repos.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=threadkiller]Somebody or entity somewhere owns these houses. Ownership can’t change without a paper trail, that’s to protect against fraud. The right of redemption however I’m less clear on. What if someone gets foreclosed on and then before a year is up wins the lottery and wants their house back. You know it’s going to happen to someone in CA someday.I’m guessing all monies would have to retrace, no harm / no foul. The new buyers would just have to happy to get their money back?[/quote]
That would be true in a mortgage repo or a judicial foreclosure.
However, California went to trust deeds and non-judicial about 30 years ago.
There is no right of redemption for most California repos.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=threadkiller]Somebody or entity somewhere owns these houses. Ownership can’t change without a paper trail, that’s to protect against fraud. The right of redemption however I’m less clear on. What if someone gets foreclosed on and then before a year is up wins the lottery and wants their house back. You know it’s going to happen to someone in CA someday.I’m guessing all monies would have to retrace, no harm / no foul. The new buyers would just have to happy to get their money back?[/quote]
That would be true in a mortgage repo or a judicial foreclosure.
However, California went to trust deeds and non-judicial about 30 years ago.
There is no right of redemption for most California repos.

[urbanrealtor]

Since like 99% of foreclosures in our fair state are non-judicial (by design and contract) this would likely be a non-issue.

Now if anyone tried to fight the foreclosure (which is honestly rare) this could come up.

However the real issue is that California repos don’t require a judge or atty. It just requires a dude to file a form at the county office and 17 bucks for recording.

In case you’re wondering, yes, this does result in errors and abuse.

[urbanrealtor]

Since like 99% of foreclosures in our fair state are non-judicial (by design and contract) this would likely be a non-issue.

Now if anyone tried to fight the foreclosure (which is honestly rare) this could come up.

However the real issue is that California repos don’t require a judge or atty. It just requires a dude to file a form at the county office and 17 bucks for recording.

In case you’re wondering, yes, this does result in errors and abuse.

[urbanrealtor]

Since like 99% of foreclosures in our fair state are non-judicial (by design and contract) this would likely be a non-issue.

Now if anyone tried to fight the foreclosure (which is honestly rare) this could come up.

However the real issue is that California repos don’t require a judge or atty. It just requires a dude to file a form at the county office and 17 bucks for recording.

In case you’re wondering, yes, this does result in errors and abuse.

[urbanrealtor]

Since like 99% of foreclosures in our fair state are non-judicial (by design and contract) this would likely be a non-issue.

Now if anyone tried to fight the foreclosure (which is honestly rare) this could come up.

However the real issue is that California repos don’t require a judge or atty. It just requires a dude to file a form at the county office and 17 bucks for recording.

In case you’re wondering, yes, this does result in errors and abuse.

[urbanrealtor]

Since like 99% of foreclosures in our fair state are non-judicial (by design and contract) this would likely be a non-issue.

Now if anyone tried to fight the foreclosure (which is honestly rare) this could come up.

However the real issue is that California repos don’t require a judge or atty. It just requires a dude to file a form at the county office and 17 bucks for recording.

In case you’re wondering, yes, this does result in errors and abuse.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=george]The seller’s disclosures and seller’s agent inspection disclosures should be completed before the property is listed. IMO an agent that prices and lists a property before getting the seller’s disclosures and before doing their own agent’s inspection/disclosures is not doing their job in a professional manner.[/quote]

Very good point, George. I agree.[/quote]

I also think that would be a good standard of practice.
However, it is not the current standard.
Kind of like how I would like to see dual-agency eliminated as a permitted practice.

Our contracts specify 7 days following acceptance to deliver disclosures to buyer.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=george]The seller’s disclosures and seller’s agent inspection disclosures should be completed before the property is listed. IMO an agent that prices and lists a property before getting the seller’s disclosures and before doing their own agent’s inspection/disclosures is not doing their job in a professional manner.[/quote]

Very good point, George. I agree.[/quote]

I also think that would be a good standard of practice.
However, it is not the current standard.
Kind of like how I would like to see dual-agency eliminated as a permitted practice.

Our contracts specify 7 days following acceptance to deliver disclosures to buyer.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=george]The seller’s disclosures and seller’s agent inspection disclosures should be completed before the property is listed. IMO an agent that prices and lists a property before getting the seller’s disclosures and before doing their own agent’s inspection/disclosures is not doing their job in a professional manner.[/quote]

Very good point, George. I agree.[/quote]

I also think that would be a good standard of practice.
However, it is not the current standard.
Kind of like how I would like to see dual-agency eliminated as a permitted practice.

Our contracts specify 7 days following acceptance to deliver disclosures to buyer.

[Author]

Posts