fyi: i bought a house, did all the work needed within a couple months , had
a buyer & could not sell because the government is getting involved in
regulating any hud, VA , or FHA. loans to force the sellers to hold title
for up to one year. this particular one was able to close after 6 months,
but I had to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, & utilities through the
winter. Just thought some people might want to know that. beware.

Rob

On Apr 6, 6:28 am, "longshot" wrote:
fyi: i bought a house, did all the work needed within a couple months , had
a buyer & could not sell because the government is getting involved in
regulating any hud, VA , or FHA. loans to force the sellers to hold title
for up to one year. this particular one was able to close after 6 months,
but I had to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, & utilities through the
winter. Just thought some people might want to know that. beware.

Rob

HUD loans aren't designed for flippers. how'd you pull that off?

On Apr 6, 5:28 am, "longshot" wrote:
fyi: i bought a house, did all the work needed within a couple months , had
a buyer & could not sell because the government is getting involved in
regulating any hud, VA , or FHA. loans to force the sellers to hold title
for up to one year. ...

The government is and has always been "involved" in government-
housing program loans for some strange reason. I'm sure those
restrictions were available for you to be aware of at the time you
financed the house on those terms.

"longshot" wrote in message
news:AhpRh.9044$hI4.1151@trndny08...
fyi: i bought a house, did all the work needed within a couple months ,
had a buyer & could not sell because the government is getting involved
in regulating any hud, VA , or FHA. loans to force the sellers to hold
title for up to one year. this particular one was able to close after 6
months, but I had to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, & utilities
through the winter. Just thought some people might want to know that.
beware.

Rob

And another one who watches too much HGTV without bothering to read the regs
comes in crying. IT'S NOT FAIR!

Steve

I was the seller & bought with cash, the buyer used a FHA loan. Just forget
I tried to offer anyone any advice.


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"longshot" wrote in message
news:AhpRh.9044$hI4.1151@trndny08...
fyi: i bought a house, did all the work needed within a couple months ,
had a buyer & could not sell because the government is getting involved
in regulating any hud, VA , or FHA. loans to force the sellers to hold
title for up to one year. this particular one was able to close after 6
months, but I had to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, & utilities
through the winter. Just thought some people might want to know that.
beware.

Rob

And another one who watches too much HGTV without bothering to read the
regs comes in crying. IT'S NOT FAIR!

Steve

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:33:24 GMT, "longshot" wrote:

I was the seller & bought with cash, the buyer used a FHA loan. Just forget
I tried to offer anyone any advice.

When you listed it for sale, could you have put a restriction such as
'no FHA loans'?







"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"longshot" wrote in message
news:AhpRh.9044$hI4.1151@trndny08...
fyi: i bought a house, did all the work needed within a couple months ,
had a buyer & could not sell because the government is getting involved
in regulating any hud, VA , or FHA. loans to force the sellers to hold
title for up to one year. this particular one was able to close after 6
months, but I had to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, & utilities
through the winter. Just thought some people might want to know that.
beware.

Rob

And another one who watches too much HGTV without bothering to read the
regs comes in crying. IT'S NOT FAIR!

Steve

"longshot" wrote in message news:8LtRh.5$Lm.3@trndny05...
I was the seller & bought with cash, the buyer used a FHA loan. Just
forget I tried to offer anyone any advice.

No worry, mate. Advice is free on the Internet, and worth twice what you
pay for it. In real life, however, it is always wise to consult trained
professionals when shucking out large amounts of cash.

Steve

"longshot" wrote in message news:8LtRh.5$Lm.3@trndny05...
I was the seller & bought with cash, the buyer used a FHA loan. Just
forget
I tried to offer anyone any advice.


So why didn't you allow the buyers to move in as tenants until escrow
closed?

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:28:48 GMT, "longshot" wrote:

fyi: i bought a house, did all the work needed within a couple months , had
a buyer & could not sell because the government is getting involved in
regulating any hud, VA , or FHA. loans to force the sellers to hold title
for up to one year. this particular one was able to close after 6 months,
but I had to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, & utilities through the
winter. Just thought some people might want to know that. beware.

Rob


Umm... Duh.


Those programs are designed to help people buy homes,
not to help people get rich in real estate.

"Goedjn" wrote in message


Those programs are designed to help people buy homes,
not to help people get rich in real estate.

Not every flip makes someone rich, but it comes down to value and what you
can/will pay. Besides, if the person did not do the repairs for a flip,
could the buyer afford to do it?

If YES, he should have done it himself and saved a lot of money.

If NO, he should thank the other person for making a nice house available to
him.

Don't you just love capitalism when it works?

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:34:54 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Goedjn" wrote in message


Those programs are designed to help people buy homes,
not to help people get rich in real estate.

Not every flip makes someone rich, but it comes down to value and what you
can/will pay. Besides, if the person did not do the repairs for a flip,
could the buyer afford to do it?

If YES, he should have done it himself and saved a lot of money.

If NO, he should thank the other person for making a nice house available to
him.

Don't you just love capitalism when it works?



Yes, but HUD, VHA, and like programs aren't about capitalism.
They are, at heart, socialist programs.

I'll admit that I though OPs problem was they he wasn't allowed to
sell the house w/out a penalty because of the terms of HIS loan,
but I'm still not prepared to be outraged.

In article 2xvRh.897$Cl.384@trndny08, Edwin Pawlowski says...


"Goedjn" wrote in message


Those programs are designed to help people buy homes,
not to help people get rich in real estate.

Not every flip makes someone rich, but it comes down to value and what you
can/will pay. Besides, if the person did not do the repairs for a flip,
could the buyer afford to do it?

If YES, he should have done it himself and saved a lot of money.

If NO, he should thank the other person for making a nice house available to
him.

Don't you just love capitalism when it works?



But is capitalism all about using government subsidized loans? Good on folks
for enterprise, but should they get to snatch up subsidies too? So much for
being risk-taking enterprisers.... :-/

And I don't know if it works that way - either a house that can be move-in
livable fixser that a bootstrapping low income person should want, vs. a flip,
so a buyer should be happy to have it all done.

First off, a flip has a lot of stuff that is a matter of what moves in a market,
not what an individual lower income buyer may care about. Maybe that bathroom
really needed to be fixed (but the perfectly functional harvest gold fixtures
could have stayed), but does the linoleum kitchen floor really have to go - it's
functional.

Secondly, I doubt that flippers only take the lost causes (really bad fixers) -
naw, they pick up the easy fixers and turn them around. Just what a low-income
buyer, who needs to work on a house while living in it, would want instead.

Flippers get to live somewhere else while they work, they get benefit of a lot
of experience and connections, and they make the houses into something over the
heads of a lot of folks who otherwise could buy the house. I mean, good on them
for their enterprise and their work, they do have good benefits to neighborhoods
as well. But that's not what the FHA loans are for.

Banty (tired of capitalists who are capitalists until they discover they don't
qualify for some gub'ment bennie then it's waaah waaah waaah...)

Flippers get to live somewhere else while they work, they get benefit of a
lot
of experience and connections, and they make the houses into something
over the
heads of a lot of folks who otherwise could buy the house. I mean, good
on them
for their enterprise and their work, they do have good benefits to
neighborhoods
as well. But that's not what the FHA loans are for.

Banty (tired of capitalists who are capitalists until they discover they
don't
qualify for some gub'ment bennie then it's waaah waaah waaah...)


I have since closed on the home a few weeks ago to a single mom with 2 kids.
She has called me twice to ask me questions & I have gone over and helped
her out. Not that it matters but she's also about twice my age. So I am not
in it for the ass. There are people in this world that aren't self centered
pricks. I guess if you could all of us... I make: "one".

In article rfxRh.37$jS1.3@trndny07, longshot says...



Flippers get to live somewhere else while they work, they get benefit of a
lot
of experience and connections, and they make the houses into something
over the
heads of a lot of folks who otherwise could buy the house. I mean, good
on them
for their enterprise and their work, they do have good benefits to
neighborhoods
as well. But that's not what the FHA loans are for.

Banty (tired of capitalists who are capitalists until they discover they
don't
qualify for some gub'ment bennie then it's waaah waaah waaah...)


I have since closed on the home a few weeks ago to a single mom with 2 kids.
She has called me twice to ask me questions & I have gone over and helped
her out. Not that it matters but she's also about twice my age. So I am not
in it for the ass. There are people in this world that aren't self centered
pricks. I guess if you could all of us... I make: "one".



Can't quite parse your last sentence, but anyway...

No need to take it personally. My response was to Edwin's statement about
'capitalism' wrt to the FHA loans.

Sounds like you're a nice guy, but still, you *are* in it to make money, right?
Again, that's not a bad thing.... just not what the FHA loans are set aside for.

Banty

in it for the ass. There are people in this world that aren't self
centered
pricks. I guess if you could all of us... I make: "one".


could = count

Ya, but you knew that when you signed the papers.

--
Steve Barker




"longshot" wrote in message
news:AhpRh.9044$hI4.1151@trndny08...
fyi: i bought a house, did all the work needed within a couple months ,
had a buyer & could not sell because the government is getting involved
in regulating any hud, VA , or FHA. loans to force the sellers to hold
title for up to one year. this particular one was able to close after 6
months, but I had to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, & utilities
through the winter. Just thought some people might want to know that.
beware.

Rob

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:32:39 GMT, "longshot" wrote:


I have since closed on the home a few weeks ago to a single mom with 2 kids.
She has called me twice to ask me questions & I have gone over and helped
her out. Not that it matters but she's also about twice my age. So I am not
in it for the ass. There are people in this world that aren't self centered
pricks. I guess if you could all of us... I make: "one".


Flipping a house; does not mean 'helping" the buyer after the close.
You got maybe to emotional in this house. Get in and get out, close up
the deal.

If you do get "in it for ass", pre-qualify the buyer. Insist on a
pre-approved letter from the lender.

You paid cash for the house and fixed it; sold it being aggravated by
government, Why not be your own BANKER?

--
Oren

"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article rfxRh.37$jS1.3@trndny07, longshot says...



Flippers get to live somewhere else while they work, they get benefit
of a
lot
of experience and connections, and they make the houses into something
over the
heads of a lot of folks who otherwise could buy the house. I mean,
good
on them
for their enterprise and their work, they do have good benefits to
neighborhoods
as well. But that's not what the FHA loans are for.

Banty (tired of capitalists who are capitalists until they discover
they
don't
qualify for some gub'ment bennie then it's waaah waaah waaah...)


I have since closed on the home a few weeks ago to a single mom with 2
kids.
She has called me twice to ask me questions & I have gone over and helped
her out. Not that it matters but she's also about twice my age. So I am
not
in it for the ass. There are people in this world that aren't self
centered
pricks. I guess if you could all of us... I make: "one".



Can't quite parse your last sentence, but anyway...

No need to take it personally. My response was to Edwin's statement about
'capitalism' wrt to the FHA loans.

Sounds like you're a nice guy, but still, you *are* in it to make money,
right?
Again, that's not a bad thing.... just not what the FHA loans are set
aside for.

Banty


The loans are made available for the purchaser, I can't see a single reason
why the FHA would care how long the seller owned the home.

--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.

COME TO MY SEMINAR!

We hear this all the time real estate.

We are led to believe by HGTV and others that flipping houses is as easy as
reconditioning hammocks. And every one pays off BIG TIME.

They don't tell you the downsides.

And the only ones that really make money are the ones who PUT ON the
seminars.

COME TO MY SEMINAR! Only $999, includes lunch. Guaranteed to show you
things you could have found out for free, but were too stupid to do in the
first place.

Steve

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:42:27 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


"longshot" wrote in message news:8LtRh.5$Lm.3@trndny05...
I was the seller & bought with cash, the buyer used a FHA loan. Just
forget
I tried to offer anyone any advice.


So why didn't you allow the buyers to move in as tenants until escrow
closed?

I have heard that that is a bad idea, but generally a contract
provides a time limit of maybe 45 days for the buyer to get a mortgage
and close.

If the buyer couldn't close for some reason, why couldn't the seller
go find another buyer after the contract expired?

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:34:54 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Goedjn" wrote in message


Those programs are designed to help people buy homes,
not to help people get rich in real estate.

Not every flip makes someone rich,


Let's put it another way. These programas are designed to help people
buy homes they intend to live in, and not to enable them to even try
to make profits in real estate.

Although it seems the OP bought it with cash** and the second buyer
was trying to get an FHA mortgage.

I'm wondering if there had been "conspiracies" of some sort where one
person bought with a regular mortage and sold on a pre-arranged deal
to another who got an FHA mortgage, and that was defeating one of the
goals of FHA. Perhaps the resale price in these cases was inflated,
although I thought a required appraisal would prevent even an FHA
mortgage for more than the house was worth (minus foreclosure costs.)
Whatever the reason, it's not likely to be a secret, and many real
estage agents, and almost all real estate lawyers would know the
reason.

**although he said he had to pay a mortgage over the winter, but I
guess he means cash he got by mortgaging the house, and used the term
to mean he didn't get an FHA mortgage, which is also a mortgage, and
pretty much like any other mortgage. So I"m not sure what the OP
meant by cash.

but it comes down to value and what you
can/will pay. Besides, if the person did not do the repairs for a flip,
could the buyer afford to do it?

If YES, he should have done it himself and saved a lot of money.

If NO, he should thank the other person for making a nice house available to
him.

Don't you just love capitalism when it works?

Both of these would be fine, so that's why I think the rule exists to
prevent free enterprise when it's not working as the FHA enactors
inteneded. Maybe in the way I suggested.

In article ,
mm wrote:
So why didn't you allow the buyers to move in as tenants until escrow
closed?

I have heard that that is a bad idea, but generally a contract
provides a time limit of maybe 45 days for the buyer to get a mortgage
and close.

If the buyer couldn't close for some reason, why couldn't the seller
go find another buyer after the contract expired?

What if the tenants don't buy, but also don't move out? Then you've got
a very annoying situation on your hands.

I've heard of similar things happening when a buyer lets the seller stay
after closing, because the seller's new house won't be ready yet, and
then the seller's new house falls through, and the seller doesn't move
out.

If you are a buyer, it's a very good idea to not close until the house
is empty, and if you are a seller, it's a very good idea to not let the
buyer take position until after closing. Anything else is asking for
trouble.


--
--Tim Smith

"Tim Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
mm wrote:
So why didn't you allow the buyers to move in as tenants until escrow
closed?

I have heard that that is a bad idea, but generally a contract
provides a time limit of maybe 45 days for the buyer to get a mortgage
and close.

If the buyer couldn't close for some reason, why couldn't the seller
go find another buyer after the contract expired?

What if the tenants don't buy, but also don't move out? Then you've got
a very annoying situation on your hands.

I've heard of similar things happening when a buyer lets the seller stay
after closing, because the seller's new house won't be ready yet, and
then the seller's new house falls through, and the seller doesn't move
out.

If you are a buyer, it's a very good idea to not close until the house
is empty, and if you are a seller, it's a very good idea to not let the
buyer take position until after closing. Anything else is asking for
trouble.


--
--Tim Smith

Amen, amen, and amen. We're still trying to get out some renters who should
have been gone January first. You would think you just go kick them out.

Nooooooooo. There's writs to be writ. Processes to be served. Legal
action to be taken. Chiggers are easier to get rid of.

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in message
Amen, amen, and amen. We're still trying to get out some renters who
should have been gone January first. You would think you just go kick
them out.

Nooooooooo. There's writs to be writ. Processes to be served. Legal
action to be taken. Chiggers are easier to get rid of.

Thanks for the reminder. Every once in a while I think it would be a good
idea to invest in rental properties. Notes like yours bring me back to
sanity. There is money to be made, but it is certainly not easy.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
et...

"Steve B" wrote in message
Amen, amen, and amen. We're still trying to get out some renters who
should have been gone January first. You would think you just go kick
them out.

Nooooooooo. There's writs to be writ. Processes to be served. Legal
action to be taken. Chiggers are easier to get rid of.

Thanks for the reminder. Every once in a while I think it would be a good
idea to invest in rental properties. Notes like yours bring me back to
sanity. There is money to be made, but it is certainly not easy.


We own three rental properties. Two we do as vacation rentals. They are
seventies tract houses in nice neighborhoods in Las Vegas. They were
almost paid off, and we pulled all the equity which we put with a CFP friend
getting 12-25% on first deeds. Now our payments are about $700 per month on
each. The first deeds bring in way more than that. Our vacation rental is
$1500 a week, $3500 a month. We have one rented (at a discount of $3,000 a
month) for May to September this year to one family. They are cash cows and
we love them.

HOWEVER, the rules of an innkeeper apply. If you want to toss them out, all
you do is call the law, describe the problem, and the law escorts them out
immediately.

We own one house in Utah that we are waiting to move into and get the heck
out of Las Vegas. We rented it to some friends of friends who were building
a house. Change order after change order and drama after drama have
extended it from January till today. In Utah, they don't use Marshals to
serve and enforce evictions. They use process servers, and they charge
handsomely. Anyway, we have served notice and they have agreed to be gone
by May first.

We'll see come May 1.

Rentals suck. Vacation rentals rock IF you have a good location. Listing
on the Internet at www.vrbo.com is less than $200 per year, and reaches
world wide. You do have to furnish and provide utensils and linens, but,
when you can make two months mortgage payments in a week, you only have to
rent it one week out of every two months. After that, everything else is
gravy. Costs for fixing it up for rental and furnishing will be recovered
in the first year if you don't do a ton of work. And a whole lot less
headache than renters. Our last renters were police officers, and the
biggest PITAS of all renters.

Steve

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 09:39:57 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

Our last renters were police officers, and the
biggest PITAS of all renters.

We rented to a Metro Corrections Officer. Constantly late with rent
money. We called his Internal Affairs and they brushed it off as a
landlord-tenant problem. We asked, don't your sworn officers have a
moral obligation to fulfill their financial responsibilities?.

If the guy has serious money problems, then he is subject to bribery.

We went to court for the eviction and the judge did not want to enter
a judgment as the guy said he had been out of the house for five days.
I asked the judge: why are we standing here, he just wasted everyone's
time? I further stated to the judge that I was going directly to the
house and if the guy was not out of the house I would return to her
court room seeking a judgment.

Oh, the house had doubled in price over 18 months, so that sucker was
sold (cash buyer) and no more head aches.

--
Oren

"The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!"

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:25:31 -0700, Tim Smith
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:
So why didn't you allow the buyers to move in as tenants until escrow
closed?

I have heard that that is a bad idea, but generally a contract
provides a time limit of maybe 45 days for the buyer to get a mortgage
and close.

If the buyer couldn't close for some reason, why couldn't the seller
go find another buyer after the contract expired?

What if the tenants don't buy, but also don't move out?

FTR, I wasn't talking about letting them move in. I said that I had
heard that was a bad idea, and your objection is one of the reasons it
is a bad idea.

In the second paragraph, I was asking why the seller had to wait the
whole winter until the 6 mos. minimum time had elapsed so that the
original buyer could complete the sale. When the buyer didn't get
financing in time to complete the purchase in the time limit stated in
the contract, he could have sold the house to someone else.

I've noticed on tv court shows that when someone sells a house or a
car or rents an apartment, and other people call later, at most they
say, "Call back in a few days. Maybe the sale won't have gone
through." What they should do is save the phone numbers of everyone
who calls, before or after, in case a deal falls through. This is
better for all concerned.

In this case, when it was clear that the buyer needed 6 months, the
seller might well have been able to end the contract in less than what
the contract stated, certainly if he had the agreement of the buyer,
and maybe without it if the buyer was making no efforts to get a
non-FHA mortgage. I would check with a lawyer on this of course, but
if the FHA has already told the buyer she won't get a mortgage within
the contract time, and the buyer is making no other demonstrable
efforts to get a mortage within that time, the seller might be able to
buy her out of the contract say for 100 dollars, if another buyer is
found, and that's a lot cheaper than the seller paying mortgage, taxes
and utilities for the rest of the 6 months.



Then you've got
a very annoying situation on your hands.

I've heard of similar things happening when a buyer lets the seller stay
after closing, because the seller's new house won't be ready yet, and
then the seller's new house falls through, and the seller doesn't move
out.

If you are a buyer, it's a very good idea to not close until the house
is empty, and if you are a seller, it's a very good idea to not let the
buyer take position until after closing. Anything else is asking for
trouble.

"Tim Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
mm wrote:
So why didn't you allow the buyers to move in as tenants until escrow
closed?

I have heard that that is a bad idea, but generally a contract
provides a time limit of maybe 45 days for the buyer to get a mortgage
and close.

If the buyer couldn't close for some reason, why couldn't the seller
go find another buyer after the contract expired?

What if the tenants don't buy, but also don't move out? Then you've got
a very annoying situation on your hands.

More annoying than this:

this particular one was able to close after 6 months,
but I had to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, & utilities through the
winter.



If you are a buyer, it's a very good idea to not close until the house
is empty, and if you are a seller, it's a very good idea to not let the
buyer take position until after closing. Anything else is asking for
trouble.


Seems to me if the buyer is qualified, (you have their credit application
and financial data from the purchase agreement) then they are able to pay
the rent and have every incentive to behave themselves. Most places right
now the market is on the soft side and a 6 month delay while paying a
mortgage and expenses is a toss it in the sewer kind of loss, so it may be
worth the hassle of accepting the risk.

It is another story all together when a strong sellers market exists and you
are getting all cash offers over the asking price.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
et...

"Steve B" wrote in message
Amen, amen, and amen. We're still trying to get out some renters who
should have been gone January first. You would think you just go kick
them out.

Nooooooooo. There's writs to be writ. Processes to be served. Legal
action to be taken. Chiggers are easier to get rid of.

Thanks for the reminder. Every once in a while I think it would be a
good
idea to invest in rental properties. Notes like yours bring me back to
sanity. There is money to be made, but it is certainly not easy.


We own three rental properties. Two we do as vacation rentals. They are
seventies tract houses in nice neighborhoods in Las Vegas. They were
almost paid off, and we pulled all the equity which we put with a CFP
friend
getting 12-25% on first deeds. Now our payments are about $700 per month
on
each. The first deeds bring in way more than that. Our vacation rental
is
$1500 a week, $3500 a month. We have one rented (at a discount of $3,000
a
month) for May to September this year to one family. They are cash cows
and
we love them.

HOWEVER, the rules of an innkeeper apply. If you want to toss them out,
all
you do is call the law, describe the problem, and the law escorts them out
immediately.

We own one house in Utah that we are waiting to move into and get the heck
out of Las Vegas. We rented it to some friends of friends who were
building
a house. Change order after change order and drama after drama have
extended it from January till today. In Utah, they don't use Marshals to
serve and enforce evictions. They use process servers, and they charge
handsomely. Anyway, we have served notice and they have agreed to be gone
by May first.

We'll see come May 1.

Rentals suck. Vacation rentals rock IF you have a good location. Listing
on the Internet at www.vrbo.com is less than $200 per year, and reaches
world wide. You do have to furnish and provide utensils and linens, but,
when you can make two months mortgage payments in a week, you only have to
rent it one week out of every two months. After that, everything else is
gravy. Costs for fixing it up for rental and furnishing will be recovered
in the first year if you don't do a ton of work. And a whole lot less
headache than renters. Our last renters were police officers, and the
biggest PITAS of all renters.

Steve



Sure tenants can be a pain, but if you take the time to qualify them then
you end up with some one else paying your mortgage for 20 or 30 years and
when you do sell you have all of that lovely equity that has built up.

If you take other steps to manage your risks, like keeping the cash flow
positive and diversifying, rather than wheeling and dealing in zero money
down use other peoples money schemes, you will be able to ride the waves of
change and come out OK.


--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 09:39:57 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

Our last renters were police officers, and the
biggest PITAS of all renters.

We rented to a Metro Corrections Officer. Constantly late with rent
money. We called his Internal Affairs and they brushed it off as a
landlord-tenant problem. We asked, don't your sworn officers have a
moral obligation to fulfill their financial responsibilities?.

If the guy has serious money problems, then he is subject to bribery.

This kind of problem can usually be avoided when checking the prospective
tenant out in the first place.




We went to court for the eviction and the judge did not want to enter
a judgment as the guy said he had been out of the house for five days.
I asked the judge: why are we standing here, he just wasted everyone's
time? I further stated to the judge that I was going directly to the
house and if the guy was not out of the house I would return to her
court room seeking a judgment.

Here is an example of not knowing the rules. If the tenant was out 5 days
before the court date, then there was no reason for you to continue seeking
the eviction. If he still owed you rent then depending on your states
procedure, you should have been entitled to a judgement in the eviction
process or a different small claims process.



Oh, the house had doubled in price over 18 months, so that sucker was
sold (cash buyer) and no more head aches.


Sounds to me like your headaches paid well.

--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:09:12 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
et...

"Steve B" wrote in message
Amen, amen, and amen. We're still trying to get out some renters who
should have been gone January first. You would think you just go kick
them out.

Nooooooooo. There's writs to be writ. Processes to be served. Legal
action to be taken. Chiggers are easier to get rid of.

Thanks for the reminder. Every once in a while I think it would be a
good
idea to invest in rental properties. Notes like yours bring me back to
sanity. There is money to be made, but it is certainly not easy.


We own three rental properties. Two we do as vacation rentals. They are
seventies tract houses in nice neighborhoods in Las Vegas. They were
almost paid off, and we pulled all the equity which we put with a CFP
friend
getting 12-25% on first deeds. Now our payments are about $700 per month
on
each. The first deeds bring in way more than that. Our vacation rental
is
$1500 a week, $3500 a month. We have one rented (at a discount of $3,000
a
month) for May to September this year to one family. They are cash cows
and
we love them.

HOWEVER, the rules of an innkeeper apply. If you want to toss them out,
all
you do is call the law, describe the problem, and the law escorts them out
immediately.

We own one house in Utah that we are waiting to move into and get the heck
out of Las Vegas. We rented it to some friends of friends who were
building
a house. Change order after change order and drama after drama have
extended it from January till today. In Utah, they don't use Marshals to
serve and enforce evictions. They use process servers, and they charge
handsomely. Anyway, we have served notice and they have agreed to be gone
by May first.

We'll see come May 1.

Rentals suck. Vacation rentals rock IF you have a good location. Listing
on the Internet at www.vrbo.com is less than $200 per year, and reaches
world wide. You do have to furnish and provide utensils and linens, but,
when you can make two months mortgage payments in a week, you only have to
rent it one week out of every two months. After that, everything else is
gravy. Costs for fixing it up for rental and furnishing will be recovered
in the first year if you don't do a ton of work. And a whole lot less
headache than renters. Our last renters were police officers, and the
biggest PITAS of all renters.

Steve



Sure tenants can be a pain, but if you take the time to qualify them then
you end up with some one else paying your mortgage for 20 or 30 years and
when you do sell you have all of that lovely equity that has built up.

I pre-qualified two tenants for one house; a law enforcement officer,
and a legal secretary. Verified employment, etc. Strange how folks
smile in your face to get in and then snivel when you demand rent
that's weeks late.

If you take other steps to manage your risks, like keeping the cash flow
positive and diversifying, rather than wheeling and dealing in zero money
down use other peoples money schemes, you will be able to ride the waves of
change and come out OK.

Positive cash flow and other peoples money. Ain't this a great
country?

If the numbers work and all bases are covered. I would do the deal. A
100 bucks a month in the positive is a 100 bucks.

--
Oren

"The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!"

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:15:34 -0700, "Roger Shoaf"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 09:39:57 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

Our last renters were police officers, and the
biggest PITAS of all renters.

We rented to a Metro Corrections Officer. Constantly late with rent
money. We called his Internal Affairs and they brushed it off as a
landlord-tenant problem. We asked, don't your sworn officers have a
moral obligation to fulfill their financial responsibilities?.

If the guy has serious money problems, then he is subject to bribery.

This kind of problem can usually be avoided when checking the prospective
tenant out in the first place.

BTDT, verified law enforcement officer with 15 years service - Las
Vegas Metro PD.


We went to court for the eviction and the judge did not want to enter
a judgment as the guy said he had been out of the house for five days.
I asked the judge: why are we standing here, he just wasted everyone's
time? I further stated to the judge that I was going directly to the
house and if the guy was not out of the house I would return to her
court room seeking a judgment.

Here is an example of not knowing the rules. If the tenant was out 5 days
before the court date, then there was no reason for you to continue seeking
the eviction. If he still owed you rent then depending on your states
procedure, you should have been entitled to a judgement in the eviction
process or a different small claims process.


I did know the rules. The tenant refused entry for an inspection
(properly notified certified mail and inclusive in the lease). The
inspection was only intended to see why the tenant had replaced a door
without notifying me first, also inclusive in the lease.

Because of his refusal for entry, violation of the lease (numerous)
and money owed I went with eviction. I didn't know he evacuated the
house 5 days early until he mentioned it to the judge. That is the
reason for my question to the judge:

I asked the judge: why are we standing here, he just wasted everyone's
time?

I could of went to my home, he was living in and got into a
confrontation. I could of even went to fix the front door and forget
to put it back in, but I didn't.

The guy had plenty of chances. Oh, the judge kindly told the jerk he
would not be getting his deposit back; nor can he ever tell an owner
of a property they cannot enter the premises with due notice. YOU
DON"T OWN THE HOME is what she told this LAW ENFORMENT OFFICER.


Oh, the house had doubled in price over 18 months, so that sucker was
sold (cash buyer) and no more head aches.


Sounds to me like your headaches paid well.

I can laugh now. A stroke of lady luck. Also had another renter and
when the lease was up that house was SOLD, near double. Then bought
another house, and moved. Then sold the previous primary home.

Sunk all the rewards into my latest house. I had a guardian angel and
good "team members".

Oh, it really paid well for the TAX MAN.

--
Oren

"The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!"

"Roger Shoaf" wrote

Sure tenants can be a pain, but if you take the time to qualify them then
you end up with some one else paying your mortgage for 20 or 30 years and
when you do sell you have all of that lovely equity that has built up.

Do the math, Roger. We got refi house loans of 5-6%, took that money, and
get 12-25%. We net from 7 to 18%. Which we take and plow back into more
first deeds. You got $200k in equity? Borrow it against your house, and
put it in investments that will make you more than the interest you pay on
that loan. Of course, it is nice to have a guy that is a CFP, and who you
happened to graduate high school with in 1966.



If you take other steps to manage your risks, like keeping the cash flow
positive and diversifying, rather than wheeling and dealing in zero money
down use other peoples money schemes, you will be able to ride the waves
of
change and come out OK.


Zero money down use other people's money schemes? Where do you get this
stuff? I think you got the wrong thread on that one, bud.

First deeds are construction loans for projects and they are secured by the
deed to the land. The borrower is limited to the % he can borrow against
the deed, usually a LOT less than 80%. So, even if they go belly up, the
lender makesAT LEAST an instant 20% by being the lein holder of the deed.
No, not lien holder, in some cases they actually hold the deed docs.


--
Roger Shoaf

Hope you got it that time. Do some reading. Talk to your banker. Talk to
a CFP you can trust. You can do better with what you got to invest than
messing with renters and low percentage "schemes".

Steve

"Roger Shoaf" wrote

It is another story all together when a strong sellers market exists and
you
are getting all cash offers over the asking price.

--

Roger Shoaf


What's that got to do with anything in the present market?

WHY, I REMEMBER when gas was twenty cents a gallon, and a candy bar was a
nickel.

Steve

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 17:06:53 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Roger Shoaf" wrote

It is another story all together when a strong sellers market exists and
you
are getting all cash offers over the asking price.

--

Roger Shoaf


What's that got to do with anything in the present market?

WHY, I REMEMBER when gas was twenty cents a gallon, and a candy bar was a
nickel.

And coke was a dime, bet cha!

--
Oren

"The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!"

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 17:06:53 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Roger Shoaf" wrote

It is another story all together when a strong sellers market exists and
you
are getting all cash offers over the asking price.

--

Roger Shoaf


What's that got to do with anything in the present market?

WHY, I REMEMBER when gas was twenty cents a gallon, and a candy bar was a
nickel.

And coke was a dime, bet cha!

--
Oren

HOT DAMN! I was in your neighborhood today, and in the corner of the garage
was a red Coke machine. The one with the silver push down handle, and the
single hole door.

I talked and talked and talked to that lady, but no luck. It was nice, and
I don't think I've seen one of those since the sixties.

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 17:06:53 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Roger Shoaf" wrote

It is another story all together when a strong sellers market exists
and
you
are getting all cash offers over the asking price.

--

Roger Shoaf


What's that got to do with anything in the present market?

WHY, I REMEMBER when gas was twenty cents a gallon, and a candy bar was a
nickel.

And coke was a dime, bet cha!

--
Oren

HOT DAMN! I was in your neighborhood today, and in the corner of the
garage was a red Coke machine. The one with the silver push down handle,
and the single hole door.

I talked and talked and talked to that lady, but no luck. It was nice,
and I don't think I've seen one of those since the sixties.

Steve


I found one online:

http://www.pastperfectbiz.com/cokemachines/vendo39.html

In article ,
Roger Shoaf wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 09:39:57 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:

Our last renters were police officers, and the
biggest PITAS of all renters.


Yeah, what are you gonna do? Call the cops? lol

--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Roger Shoaf" wrote

Sure tenants can be a pain, but if you take the time to qualify them
then
you end up with some one else paying your mortgage for 20 or 30 years
and
when you do sell you have all of that lovely equity that has built up.

Do the math, Roger. We got refi house loans of 5-6%, took that money, and
get 12-25%. We net from 7 to 18%. Which we take and plow back into more
first deeds. You got $200k in equity? Borrow it against your house, and
put it in investments that will make you more than the interest you pay on
that loan. Of course, it is nice to have a guy that is a CFP, and who you
happened to graduate high school with in 1966.


I have seen people that were worth millions on paper one month be bankrupt
six months later. What happens is they leverage so much of their property
then they either get several bad tenants at one time or their property sits
vacant and for some reason the bank wants their money. It really does not
take long for the house of cards to come tumbling down.

If it were really easy to gurantee that an investment will always make more
than the mortgage payment your theory would make a great deal of sense, but
realestate is a long term proposition, and if you can't survive with a 50%
vacancy rate for 6 months then you can get in trouble real quick.


Zero money down use other people's money schemes? Where do you get this
stuff? I think you got the wrong thread on that one, bud.

First deeds are construction loans for projects and they are secured by
the
deed to the land. The borrower is limited to the % he can borrow against
the deed, usually a LOT less than 80%. So, even if they go belly up, the
lender makesAT LEAST an instant 20% by being the lein holder of the deed.
No, not lien holder, in some cases they actually hold the deed docs.


--
Roger Shoaf

Hope you got it that time. Do some reading. Talk to your banker. Talk
to
a CFP you can trust. You can do better with what you got to invest than
messing with renters and low percentage "schemes".


You might be doing well, but if the land you lend your borrowed money
against has to be foreclosed on and you have trouble finding a buyer at the
price you need to recoup your losses you can be upside down, don't kid
yourself. There is a reason those folks are willing to pay 12-25%.


--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

"Roger Shoaf" wrote

You might be doing well, but if the land you lend your borrowed money
against has to be foreclosed on and you have trouble finding a buyer at
the
price you need to recoup your losses you can be upside down, don't kid
yourself. There is a reason those folks are willing to pay 12-25%.

That is why there is a percentage cap on what will be lent. If a property
is worth $10 million, all that will be lent on it is six. When that phase
is complete, the property has appreciated because of structures built and
completed on it, and the land is still worth ten,
thus more can be lent to bring in subsequent phases at a lower risk to the
lenders. Every wonder why properties are built in phases? The rate is
determined by the term. Short term loans are always higher percentage.

But you knew that, right?

Steve