Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I still don't understand what is so criminal if someone wants to rent the home there couldn't afford to pay mortgage payments on? What can the homeowner complain about. They don't have to rent it if they don't want to. I closed today on a short sale and the tenant moved out and the owner didn't want to rent it, and I never offered it any way, because I really didn't trusted them.
I still don't understand what is so criminal if someone wants to rent the home there couldn't afford to pay mortgage payments on? What can the homeowner complain about. They don't have to rent it if they don't want to. I closed today on a short sale and the tenant moved out and the owner didn't want to rent it, and I never offered it any way, because I really didn't trusted them.
You can rent it to the former homeowner. But, if you rent back w/option (or any other method which implies you're agreeing to allow them to regain ownership) then you are opening yourself up to legal issues. The powers that be have decided that you, as the investor would have known they could not have qualified to purchase it back, therefore, you misled them in deeding it to you under false pretenses. Because, our Attorney General wants to 'protect' the innocent homeowners who, in her mind, apparently can't or shouldn't be held responsible for their own decisions.
This all stemmed from real frauds who practiced equity stripping and other truly illegal activities. She (the AG) decided to lump all investors, dishonest or otherwise, into the same boat.
Bottom line, her attempts to look like someone who was going to protect the 'innocent victims' has predictably backfired since many of them were 'protected' right into losing their homes, including one who had asked me to sell and lease back w/option, just days before the auction. Unfortunately, the sponsor of the bill (this was just before the vote) could not even tell me what we could or could not do, without taking on that legal risk, so we let it go and he lost his home. And that's what's now happening all over the state.
Too bad. Because if she just let the free market take care of itself, many of the homes that are in trouble, or already gone, would now be the problem for the investor, rather than the homeowner, which is what she would have preferred in the first place.
I want to apoligize to middle aged mom, i'm so sorry i wasmistaken with the word shabby. English is not my first language but that shouldn't be an excuse. Sorry.
That's OK bentlebee. You do much better than I would in your language.
You can rent it to the former homeowner. But, if you rent back w/option (or any other method which implies you're agreeing to allow them to regain ownership) then you are opening yourself up to legal issues. The powers that be have decided that you, as the investor would have known they could not have qualified to purchase it back, therefore, you misled them in deeding it to you under false pretenses. Because, our Attorney General wants to 'protect' the innocent homeowners who, in her mind, apparently can't or shouldn't be held responsible for their own decisions.
This all stemmed from real frauds who practiced equity stripping and other truly illegal activities. She (the AG) decided to lump all investors, dishonest or otherwise, into the same boat.
Bottom line, her attempts to look like someone who was going to protect the 'innocent victims' has predictably backfired since many of them were 'protected' right into losing their homes, including one who had asked me to sell and lease back w/option, just days before the auction. Unfortunately, the sponsor of the bill (this was just before the vote) could not even tell me what we could or could not do, without taking on that legal risk, so we let it go and he lost his home. And that's what's now happening all over the state.
Too bad. Because if she just let the free market take care of itself, many of the homes that are in trouble, or already gone, would now be the problem for the investor, rather than the homeowner, which is what she would have preferred in the first place.
OMG. This is horrible. Doesn't the AG think about these families and their kids, just because some people did some thing wrong for which they should be punished. Now she is punishing a lot more people.
So you are not allowed to give them a lease purchase but are you allowed to rent it to the previous owners? Because kicking the home owners out and have kids to switch school even if the home owners in financial trouble want to stay and get back on their feet, that is even worse and that sounds criminal to me.
can a realtor give their commission as a credit to reduce closing costs for buyer and then be reimbursed by buyer after the fact? in south florida
Maybe, but there are 2 potential problems that I see.
They could possibly give part of the commission to cover closing cost, but the lender would have to approve it. There is a limit to outside contribution lenders will allow so you need to find out about that first.
The second problem is reimbursement. Any funds with the transaction need to be on the HUD-1. I think it's a RESPA violation or possibly fraud for what you are proposing. Consult with the closing attorney on that one.
can a realtor give their commission as a credit to reduce closing costs for buyer and then be reimbursed by buyer after the fact? in south florida
It is legal, but certainly not a good practice, that a Realtor can rebate a portion of her commission to the buyer on the HUD 1 to assist with closing costs.
However, it cannot be an undisclosed loan. And what you are describing is an undisclosed loan.
If the Realtor is going to loan you the money, it MUST be disclosed to the lender because it may affect their decision on whether or not to give you their loan.
This scenario is not a RESPA violation. RESPA is designed to protect the consumer.
This is an undisclosed second loan and is considered Mortgage Fraud.
Mortgage fraud is a material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission relied upon by a lender or underwriter to fund a loan.
If you do not disclose that you are borrowing money to help with closing costs, then that is mortgage fraud.
Any buyer who does not disclose a second loan could face heavy Federal (if it's a federally backed loan) and State fines plus prison time.
The agent would also face prison time and fines, plus losing their license.
Google Mortgage Fraud for more information.
Google RESPA for more information on how RESPA protects consumers.
I think they also pay for some closing costs and credit for attorney fees as well.
There are many limited service, "discount," etc. real estate agents out there. You get what you pay for from these agents, but also not everyone needs a full service agent which is why these business models exist. Sadly there are plenty of people who hire these agents that could benefit a lot from a full service agent they just don't realize it. As the old saying goes . . . you don't know what you don't know. Sometimes that can be an expensive mistake to make when it comes to buying/selling a house.
Status:
"Made the Retirement Run in under 12 parsecs!!!"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Cary, NC
43,056 posts, read 76,592,428 times
Reputation: 45378
Methinks Fiverr is A-Foott!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.