[urbanrealtor]

[quote=pabloesqobar]Is there a written lease? Verbal lease? What are the terms? Month to month or a fixed period?

If you want to make a case for non-payment, DO NOT CASH/ACCEPT the check for the lesser amount. The future Defendants will use your acceptance of that amount as contractually agreeing to the next month at that rate. Once you cash it, you’ve basically agreed to that rate.

If your goal is to get rid of that tenant, do not cash the check. Give the 3 day notice. Use the expedited procedure that exists for unlawful detainer cases.[/quote]
Seriously.
Do not accept a lesser amount.
Once you accept it…well..you’ve accepted it.
In court the tenant can always claim “well, I just kept paying the rent like always and some guest must have signed for the letter…”.

Here is an excerpt from Nolo’s “First Time Landlord” book on the legal aspects of eviction:

“If you accept even a partial amount of rent a tenant owes–whether for past months or even just the current month–you will, in moist states, cancel the effect of a Pay Rent or Quit notice.”

You can issue a new notice for the new amount after accepting some small amount but then they give you another small amount and so on.

Also, the Nolo books are worth buying. Even as a kindle version.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=pabloesqobar]Is there a written lease? Verbal lease? What are the terms? Month to month or a fixed period?

If you want to make a case for non-payment, DO NOT CASH/ACCEPT the check for the lesser amount. The future Defendants will use your acceptance of that amount as contractually agreeing to the next month at that rate. Once you cash it, you’ve basically agreed to that rate.

If your goal is to get rid of that tenant, do not cash the check. Give the 3 day notice. Use the expedited procedure that exists for unlawful detainer cases.[/quote]
Seriously.
Do not accept a lesser amount.
Once you accept it…well..you’ve accepted it.
In court the tenant can always claim “well, I just kept paying the rent like always and some guest must have signed for the letter…”.

Here is an excerpt from Nolo’s “First Time Landlord” book on the legal aspects of eviction:

“If you accept even a partial amount of rent a tenant owes–whether for past months or even just the current month–you will, in moist states, cancel the effect of a Pay Rent or Quit notice.”

You can issue a new notice for the new amount after accepting some small amount but then they give you another small amount and so on.

Also, the Nolo books are worth buying. Even as a kindle version.

[urbanrealtor]

Pretty sure they can but they should not continue to accept partial rent.
It suggests that they approve of the lower payments.
If it were my client (and I were the property manager) I would refuse the smaller check and advise the tenant that it would be inappropriate to accept money when I am already scheduling a date for the sheriff to punch out the locks.

I have found that generally has the effect I look for.

My two bits.

[urbanrealtor]

Pretty sure they can but they should not continue to accept partial rent.
It suggests that they approve of the lower payments.
If it were my client (and I were the property manager) I would refuse the smaller check and advise the tenant that it would be inappropriate to accept money when I am already scheduling a date for the sheriff to punch out the locks.

I have found that generally has the effect I look for.

My two bits.

[urbanrealtor]

Pretty sure they can but they should not continue to accept partial rent.
It suggests that they approve of the lower payments.
If it were my client (and I were the property manager) I would refuse the smaller check and advise the tenant that it would be inappropriate to accept money when I am already scheduling a date for the sheriff to punch out the locks.

I have found that generally has the effect I look for.

My two bits.

[urbanrealtor]

Pretty sure they can but they should not continue to accept partial rent.
It suggests that they approve of the lower payments.
If it were my client (and I were the property manager) I would refuse the smaller check and advise the tenant that it would be inappropriate to accept money when I am already scheduling a date for the sheriff to punch out the locks.

I have found that generally has the effect I look for.

My two bits.

[urbanrealtor]

Pretty sure they can but they should not continue to accept partial rent.
It suggests that they approve of the lower payments.
If it were my client (and I were the property manager) I would refuse the smaller check and advise the tenant that it would be inappropriate to accept money when I am already scheduling a date for the sheriff to punch out the locks.

I have found that generally has the effect I look for.

My two bits.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=SD Realtor]Well CV, I am not sure that foreclosing quickly part is or ever was part of the plan. If institutionalized foreclosures would have happened en masse then those institutions would not have been able to manipulate the books as easily as if the assets were simply not performing. Once that foreclosure is done then financially it is a different ballgame.

[/quote]

I was only referring here to the loan servicers. That’s where they make their money, collect all their fees, with a completed foreclosure. So their business interest is often at odds with their investors. They often have no skin in the game so maximizing return is sometimes incidental. But they are ill equipped to deal with distressed assets, whether it’s a delinquent loan or REO.

I think the whole “manipulate the books” thing is overblown. To the extent the loans are owned by private label MBS, they have no incentive, none at all. Banks that are subject to FDIC, Treasury, OTS and SEC regulation and supervision? They have incentive, but given the scrutiny they’re under, and the market for the last few years, it would seem unlikely there’s widespread continued manipulation. They were mostly pretty conservative in setting aside loan loss reserves a couple years ago in order to get bad business behind them. Are the GSE’s hiding losses? Maybe. Eh…probably. How much is anyone’s guess, but they make up maybe a 1/3 of the outstanding mortgage market.

As to who forecloses…well it is the servicer. They get the ball rolling, nobody else. The servicers, on behalf of the beneficiary control that process.[/quote]

You are inaccurate about this.
The lenders (or lien holders or note holders or whatever) are the employers of the servicers and can veto their actions.
I am doing one with Aurora right now.
Aurora has misrepresented some of the components of this deal and the seller has had me contact the note holder (who is a major east coast financial firm).

The financial firm has postponed the short sale and we are now dealing with them.

While I do not dispute that it is sometimes in the best interests of the servicer to foreclose, I think that they try very hard not to act in any way that appears to place their own interests above those of their lender.

Now that last thought is pure speculation but it is consistent with both observable behavior as well as models of lien holder and servicer incentive structures.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=SD Realtor]Well CV, I am not sure that foreclosing quickly part is or ever was part of the plan. If institutionalized foreclosures would have happened en masse then those institutions would not have been able to manipulate the books as easily as if the assets were simply not performing. Once that foreclosure is done then financially it is a different ballgame.

[/quote]

I was only referring here to the loan servicers. That’s where they make their money, collect all their fees, with a completed foreclosure. So their business interest is often at odds with their investors. They often have no skin in the game so maximizing return is sometimes incidental. But they are ill equipped to deal with distressed assets, whether it’s a delinquent loan or REO.

I think the whole “manipulate the books” thing is overblown. To the extent the loans are owned by private label MBS, they have no incentive, none at all. Banks that are subject to FDIC, Treasury, OTS and SEC regulation and supervision? They have incentive, but given the scrutiny they’re under, and the market for the last few years, it would seem unlikely there’s widespread continued manipulation. They were mostly pretty conservative in setting aside loan loss reserves a couple years ago in order to get bad business behind them. Are the GSE’s hiding losses? Maybe. Eh…probably. How much is anyone’s guess, but they make up maybe a 1/3 of the outstanding mortgage market.

As to who forecloses…well it is the servicer. They get the ball rolling, nobody else. The servicers, on behalf of the beneficiary control that process.[/quote]

You are inaccurate about this.
The lenders (or lien holders or note holders or whatever) are the employers of the servicers and can veto their actions.
I am doing one with Aurora right now.
Aurora has misrepresented some of the components of this deal and the seller has had me contact the note holder (who is a major east coast financial firm).

The financial firm has postponed the short sale and we are now dealing with them.

While I do not dispute that it is sometimes in the best interests of the servicer to foreclose, I think that they try very hard not to act in any way that appears to place their own interests above those of their lender.

Now that last thought is pure speculation but it is consistent with both observable behavior as well as models of lien holder and servicer incentive structures.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=SD Realtor]Well CV, I am not sure that foreclosing quickly part is or ever was part of the plan. If institutionalized foreclosures would have happened en masse then those institutions would not have been able to manipulate the books as easily as if the assets were simply not performing. Once that foreclosure is done then financially it is a different ballgame.

[/quote]

I was only referring here to the loan servicers. That’s where they make their money, collect all their fees, with a completed foreclosure. So their business interest is often at odds with their investors. They often have no skin in the game so maximizing return is sometimes incidental. But they are ill equipped to deal with distressed assets, whether it’s a delinquent loan or REO.

I think the whole “manipulate the books” thing is overblown. To the extent the loans are owned by private label MBS, they have no incentive, none at all. Banks that are subject to FDIC, Treasury, OTS and SEC regulation and supervision? They have incentive, but given the scrutiny they’re under, and the market for the last few years, it would seem unlikely there’s widespread continued manipulation. They were mostly pretty conservative in setting aside loan loss reserves a couple years ago in order to get bad business behind them. Are the GSE’s hiding losses? Maybe. Eh…probably. How much is anyone’s guess, but they make up maybe a 1/3 of the outstanding mortgage market.

As to who forecloses…well it is the servicer. They get the ball rolling, nobody else. The servicers, on behalf of the beneficiary control that process.[/quote]

You are inaccurate about this.
The lenders (or lien holders or note holders or whatever) are the employers of the servicers and can veto their actions.
I am doing one with Aurora right now.
Aurora has misrepresented some of the components of this deal and the seller has had me contact the note holder (who is a major east coast financial firm).

The financial firm has postponed the short sale and we are now dealing with them.

While I do not dispute that it is sometimes in the best interests of the servicer to foreclose, I think that they try very hard not to act in any way that appears to place their own interests above those of their lender.

Now that last thought is pure speculation but it is consistent with both observable behavior as well as models of lien holder and servicer incentive structures.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=SD Realtor]Well CV, I am not sure that foreclosing quickly part is or ever was part of the plan. If institutionalized foreclosures would have happened en masse then those institutions would not have been able to manipulate the books as easily as if the assets were simply not performing. Once that foreclosure is done then financially it is a different ballgame.

[/quote]

I was only referring here to the loan servicers. That’s where they make their money, collect all their fees, with a completed foreclosure. So their business interest is often at odds with their investors. They often have no skin in the game so maximizing return is sometimes incidental. But they are ill equipped to deal with distressed assets, whether it’s a delinquent loan or REO.

I think the whole “manipulate the books” thing is overblown. To the extent the loans are owned by private label MBS, they have no incentive, none at all. Banks that are subject to FDIC, Treasury, OTS and SEC regulation and supervision? They have incentive, but given the scrutiny they’re under, and the market for the last few years, it would seem unlikely there’s widespread continued manipulation. They were mostly pretty conservative in setting aside loan loss reserves a couple years ago in order to get bad business behind them. Are the GSE’s hiding losses? Maybe. Eh…probably. How much is anyone’s guess, but they make up maybe a 1/3 of the outstanding mortgage market.

As to who forecloses…well it is the servicer. They get the ball rolling, nobody else. The servicers, on behalf of the beneficiary control that process.[/quote]

You are inaccurate about this.
The lenders (or lien holders or note holders or whatever) are the employers of the servicers and can veto their actions.
I am doing one with Aurora right now.
Aurora has misrepresented some of the components of this deal and the seller has had me contact the note holder (who is a major east coast financial firm).

The financial firm has postponed the short sale and we are now dealing with them.

While I do not dispute that it is sometimes in the best interests of the servicer to foreclose, I think that they try very hard not to act in any way that appears to place their own interests above those of their lender.

Now that last thought is pure speculation but it is consistent with both observable behavior as well as models of lien holder and servicer incentive structures.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=SD Realtor]Well CV, I am not sure that foreclosing quickly part is or ever was part of the plan. If institutionalized foreclosures would have happened en masse then those institutions would not have been able to manipulate the books as easily as if the assets were simply not performing. Once that foreclosure is done then financially it is a different ballgame.

[/quote]

I was only referring here to the loan servicers. That’s where they make their money, collect all their fees, with a completed foreclosure. So their business interest is often at odds with their investors. They often have no skin in the game so maximizing return is sometimes incidental. But they are ill equipped to deal with distressed assets, whether it’s a delinquent loan or REO.

I think the whole “manipulate the books” thing is overblown. To the extent the loans are owned by private label MBS, they have no incentive, none at all. Banks that are subject to FDIC, Treasury, OTS and SEC regulation and supervision? They have incentive, but given the scrutiny they’re under, and the market for the last few years, it would seem unlikely there’s widespread continued manipulation. They were mostly pretty conservative in setting aside loan loss reserves a couple years ago in order to get bad business behind them. Are the GSE’s hiding losses? Maybe. Eh…probably. How much is anyone’s guess, but they make up maybe a 1/3 of the outstanding mortgage market.

As to who forecloses…well it is the servicer. They get the ball rolling, nobody else. The servicers, on behalf of the beneficiary control that process.[/quote]

You are inaccurate about this.
The lenders (or lien holders or note holders or whatever) are the employers of the servicers and can veto their actions.
I am doing one with Aurora right now.
Aurora has misrepresented some of the components of this deal and the seller has had me contact the note holder (who is a major east coast financial firm).

The financial firm has postponed the short sale and we are now dealing with them.

While I do not dispute that it is sometimes in the best interests of the servicer to foreclose, I think that they try very hard not to act in any way that appears to place their own interests above those of their lender.

Now that last thought is pure speculation but it is consistent with both observable behavior as well as models of lien holder and servicer incentive structures.

[urbanrealtor]

Its ironic how these real events can have such an impact.
I am not saying that Temecula will go this direction but environmental concerns can shift business-friendly pro-growth areas into a more environmentally conscious mindset.

San Francisco had the Freeway Revolt in the late 50’s.
This is pretty much acknowledged as the beginning of the shift from a conservative military town to what it has become.
Cleveland’s river fire effectively created the EPA.
Cleveland is one of the most lefty cities in the midwest now.
Its something that public officials should consider when they get too friendly with business.
Decisions that affect the lives of many, have a way of influencing future elections.

[urbanrealtor]

Its ironic how these real events can have such an impact.
I am not saying that Temecula will go this direction but environmental concerns can shift business-friendly pro-growth areas into a more environmentally conscious mindset.

San Francisco had the Freeway Revolt in the late 50’s.
This is pretty much acknowledged as the beginning of the shift from a conservative military town to what it has become.
Cleveland’s river fire effectively created the EPA.
Cleveland is one of the most lefty cities in the midwest now.
Its something that public officials should consider when they get too friendly with business.
Decisions that affect the lives of many, have a way of influencing future elections.

[urbanrealtor]

Its ironic how these real events can have such an impact.
I am not saying that Temecula will go this direction but environmental concerns can shift business-friendly pro-growth areas into a more environmentally conscious mindset.

San Francisco had the Freeway Revolt in the late 50’s.
This is pretty much acknowledged as the beginning of the shift from a conservative military town to what it has become.
Cleveland’s river fire effectively created the EPA.
Cleveland is one of the most lefty cities in the midwest now.
Its something that public officials should consider when they get too friendly with business.
Decisions that affect the lives of many, have a way of influencing future elections.

[Author]

Posts