This is from "are you dumb enough to be rich " by g. William Barnett II. What is he saying about losing credit in equity to the seller in a subject-to unless you word the contract properly? I don’t get it. the owner of the title of the property the mortgage is attached to is indicated in the contract no? Whatever he’s referring to went clear over my head.
http://img-cdn.filefactory.com/embed/xl/32v3je8wpktf.png
Jesus, didn’t realize it was so huge.
Resize the photo. It’s impossible to read.
This isn’t referring to a straight subject to transaction, or structure.
For example, the decreasing mortgage balance and consequent equity buildup belong to the title holder, except when/if the title isn’t fully transferred. This happens with an AITD (All Inclusive Deed of Trust), or in those other ‘allegedly’ ‘due on sale’ proof trusts’ schemes that leave the seller with interest in the title, that have been mercilessly touted on this forum and others.
My ideas of a good sub2 deal goes like this:
- Give me your deed. 2) Go away.
There’s no mortgage balance assignment nonsense, or agreeing to give up equity, or even mentioning anything of the sort.
From what I can read, if you follow this guy, you’ll be doing sub2’s the most dysfunctional and overwrought way I could imagine.
BTW, the width of your photo is screwing up browser page…
Thanks javipa.