[urbanrealtor]

[quote=toots]In short sale negotiations, how advantageous is an all cash offer (a reasonable offer)?[/quote]
In my experience, the primary benefit in all cash is the sureness of closing. That is less of a component in short sales.

In short I find it to be of very little advantage.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=toots]In short sale negotiations, how advantageous is an all cash offer (a reasonable offer)?[/quote]
In my experience, the primary benefit in all cash is the sureness of closing. That is less of a component in short sales.

In short I find it to be of very little advantage.

[urbanrealtor]

Not to get too metaphysical here but this is one of those “who pays” questions I get so often.
Today, at an inspection, I apparently surprised my buyer by telling her that she would not be paying me.
However, it is paid out of the proceeds of the sale which are paid by the buyer.
Most people see that as the seller paying.

In other words, commissions and liens get paid from the proceeds of the sale. This is money that would otherwise be going to the seller. In a short sale, the seller would not be getting that anyway so he does not care how much it is or how much the late fees are. He nets zero either way.

[urbanrealtor]

Not to get too metaphysical here but this is one of those “who pays” questions I get so often.
Today, at an inspection, I apparently surprised my buyer by telling her that she would not be paying me.
However, it is paid out of the proceeds of the sale which are paid by the buyer.
Most people see that as the seller paying.

In other words, commissions and liens get paid from the proceeds of the sale. This is money that would otherwise be going to the seller. In a short sale, the seller would not be getting that anyway so he does not care how much it is or how much the late fees are. He nets zero either way.

[urbanrealtor]

Not to get too metaphysical here but this is one of those “who pays” questions I get so often.
Today, at an inspection, I apparently surprised my buyer by telling her that she would not be paying me.
However, it is paid out of the proceeds of the sale which are paid by the buyer.
Most people see that as the seller paying.

In other words, commissions and liens get paid from the proceeds of the sale. This is money that would otherwise be going to the seller. In a short sale, the seller would not be getting that anyway so he does not care how much it is or how much the late fees are. He nets zero either way.

[urbanrealtor]

Not to get too metaphysical here but this is one of those “who pays” questions I get so often.
Today, at an inspection, I apparently surprised my buyer by telling her that she would not be paying me.
However, it is paid out of the proceeds of the sale which are paid by the buyer.
Most people see that as the seller paying.

In other words, commissions and liens get paid from the proceeds of the sale. This is money that would otherwise be going to the seller. In a short sale, the seller would not be getting that anyway so he does not care how much it is or how much the late fees are. He nets zero either way.

[urbanrealtor]

Not to get too metaphysical here but this is one of those “who pays” questions I get so often.
Today, at an inspection, I apparently surprised my buyer by telling her that she would not be paying me.
However, it is paid out of the proceeds of the sale which are paid by the buyer.
Most people see that as the seller paying.

In other words, commissions and liens get paid from the proceeds of the sale. This is money that would otherwise be going to the seller. In a short sale, the seller would not be getting that anyway so he does not care how much it is or how much the late fees are. He nets zero either way.

[urbanrealtor]

While I am not sure I agree with his conclusion (in fact, I am pretty sure I don’t), I don’t see good arguments against it on this thread.

I wish Rich were about.

I suspect his comments would be a teensy bit more intellectual than some variation on “he is a poop head”.

Most of those here are not.

Here is a thought his article brings up for me:

What is the downside risk to the overall economy in mass deflation?

Rich’s articles on deflation seem to focus more on how it won’t happen rather than the risk if it should occur.

Feel free to correct me if I have missed one.

[urbanrealtor]

While I am not sure I agree with his conclusion (in fact, I am pretty sure I don’t), I don’t see good arguments against it on this thread.

I wish Rich were about.

I suspect his comments would be a teensy bit more intellectual than some variation on “he is a poop head”.

Most of those here are not.

Here is a thought his article brings up for me:

What is the downside risk to the overall economy in mass deflation?

Rich’s articles on deflation seem to focus more on how it won’t happen rather than the risk if it should occur.

Feel free to correct me if I have missed one.

[urbanrealtor]

While I am not sure I agree with his conclusion (in fact, I am pretty sure I don’t), I don’t see good arguments against it on this thread.

I wish Rich were about.

I suspect his comments would be a teensy bit more intellectual than some variation on “he is a poop head”.

Most of those here are not.

Here is a thought his article brings up for me:

What is the downside risk to the overall economy in mass deflation?

Rich’s articles on deflation seem to focus more on how it won’t happen rather than the risk if it should occur.

Feel free to correct me if I have missed one.

[urbanrealtor]

While I am not sure I agree with his conclusion (in fact, I am pretty sure I don’t), I don’t see good arguments against it on this thread.

I wish Rich were about.

I suspect his comments would be a teensy bit more intellectual than some variation on “he is a poop head”.

Most of those here are not.

Here is a thought his article brings up for me:

What is the downside risk to the overall economy in mass deflation?

Rich’s articles on deflation seem to focus more on how it won’t happen rather than the risk if it should occur.

Feel free to correct me if I have missed one.

[urbanrealtor]

While I am not sure I agree with his conclusion (in fact, I am pretty sure I don’t), I don’t see good arguments against it on this thread.

I wish Rich were about.

I suspect his comments would be a teensy bit more intellectual than some variation on “he is a poop head”.

Most of those here are not.

Here is a thought his article brings up for me:

What is the downside risk to the overall economy in mass deflation?

Rich’s articles on deflation seem to focus more on how it won’t happen rather than the risk if it should occur.

Feel free to correct me if I have missed one.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=chavous1]How do HOA’s have the power to foreclose on property owned by the bank? If the homeowner is not in default with the bank, how can this occur? Who really owns the property, the bank or the HOA?[/quote]

Your question is a bit muddled but I will answer to what I think you are asking.

If the bank has already foreclosed and is now a homeowner themselves, they are subject to any liens just like a normal owner. Further, if they are a first mortgage (and they almost always are these days) then they own it outright and therefore have 100% equity. If they go several months without paying their HOA dues (which happens often), the HOA can file a lien or even foreclose on the owner (the bank) who is delinquent. The HOA dues are an encumbrance just like any other loan or lien. The issue from before was that if you (as an individual homeowner) have 2 loans and no equity (like most of my clients) then it would be stupid for the HOA to foreclose on you. They would foreclose just to be able to assume responsibility for a property that is upside down.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=chavous1]How do HOA’s have the power to foreclose on property owned by the bank? If the homeowner is not in default with the bank, how can this occur? Who really owns the property, the bank or the HOA?[/quote]

Your question is a bit muddled but I will answer to what I think you are asking.

If the bank has already foreclosed and is now a homeowner themselves, they are subject to any liens just like a normal owner. Further, if they are a first mortgage (and they almost always are these days) then they own it outright and therefore have 100% equity. If they go several months without paying their HOA dues (which happens often), the HOA can file a lien or even foreclose on the owner (the bank) who is delinquent. The HOA dues are an encumbrance just like any other loan or lien. The issue from before was that if you (as an individual homeowner) have 2 loans and no equity (like most of my clients) then it would be stupid for the HOA to foreclose on you. They would foreclose just to be able to assume responsibility for a property that is upside down.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=chavous1]How do HOA’s have the power to foreclose on property owned by the bank? If the homeowner is not in default with the bank, how can this occur? Who really owns the property, the bank or the HOA?[/quote]

Your question is a bit muddled but I will answer to what I think you are asking.

If the bank has already foreclosed and is now a homeowner themselves, they are subject to any liens just like a normal owner. Further, if they are a first mortgage (and they almost always are these days) then they own it outright and therefore have 100% equity. If they go several months without paying their HOA dues (which happens often), the HOA can file a lien or even foreclose on the owner (the bank) who is delinquent. The HOA dues are an encumbrance just like any other loan or lien. The issue from before was that if you (as an individual homeowner) have 2 loans and no equity (like most of my clients) then it would be stupid for the HOA to foreclose on you. They would foreclose just to be able to assume responsibility for a property that is upside down.

[Author]

Posts