My dad taught me that if I could make the $500 morally, ethically and legally, it would be nice to keep half and share the other half. It’s called “Good karma”.
<<My dad taught me that if I could make the $500 morally, ethically and legally, it would be nice to keep half and share the other half. It’s called “Good karma”.>>
No, actually, “Earl”, that’s just the taxes!
:lol:
Keith
Yes and No. Yes, you receive a payment for closing costs and/or down payment from the buyer. At that time, the buyer receives a beneficiary interest in the trust.
The actual deed was transferred to your Trustee when you first set up the trust. You now own a Trust (personal property). Payment is made by the Tenant to the Trustee who pays the mortgage and pays you the difference (your positive cash flow). The deed remains in the Trustee’s name until termination of your agreement.
i have found that money i have earned for my hard work and my risk is always better in MY pocket, and my pocket alone. selfish? anyone can think what they want. IMO i am doing someone a HUGE justice by offerring a non-bank qualifying homebuying opportunity that they would not have had if I had not offerred it to them.
The above should be called “your choice”. You almost make it seem that someone who wants to keep their hard earned money is doing something wrong. Many are in business to make money. What they do with it is their decision. I am not in business to give half of my money away.
I also think it is assinine to pay 1% of the value of a house just to have a corporate trustee, not to mention the $40 per month fee. If you want to advise people to throw their money away, then you can expect to hear the common sense opposite point of views.
I can read between the lines of every post you make, and you do nothing but attempt to make it sound like those who do sub 2 deals without a NARS trust are a bunch of unethical immoral people. NOTE…I did NOT say you said this, I said it is how I read it betweeen the lines.
How about instead of shoving the NARS trust down every thread you post in, you pay more attention to helping people by answering their questions…instead of twisting every answer to point people to the advantages of the NARS trust.
no matter how it’s sliced, a trust used in the sell/lease side of a sub 2 deal is only to circumvent the DOSC, and no other reason otherwise they would not have any need to use the trust. the shared equity nonsense is only a way to sugur coat the fact that they are circumventing the DOSC, or a way to justify it, otherwise any buyer would not want to be involved in it. it looks too shady to me, even though it may not be. same goes for all the unneeded protection of a trust in a real estate deal.
oh i forgot big brother is not watching!
Your ignorance is showing, Bobo. You said, “I also think it is assinine to pay 1% of the value of a house just to have a corporate trustee, not to mention the $40 per month fee.”
THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. Trust preparation is 1% through you know whom. The Trustee is a separate entity that charges $40 per month.
I’ve done many subect 2’s without a trust. However, once I discovered the land trust about 3 years ago, I wouldn’t use any other method.
And Tony D., a trust may be legally established as sound investment strategy by anyone. It doesn’t circumvent the DOSC because the law says it doesn’t.
Have a nice day and don’t forget to share.
then y do u use them, Gary?
Gary, you can tell me I am showing my ignorance all you want. I think anyone with a brain can figure out the meaning of what I said about the cost.
I will simplify my comment so the simple minded can understand…“I think it is assinine to pay 1% of the value of the property, and on top of that $40 per month…no matter where the money goes to”. I’d rather keep it. The cost is ridiculous.
I’m sure you knew the exact point I was trying to make. I’m not going to get in a name calling “urinary” match. The comment about ignorance doesn’t really bother me. When things like that are stated, I just consider the source, and move on.
Have a good day.
I also want to add that I have nothing against trusts. As a matter of fact, in the near future, when I begin looking for long term buy and hold rentals, I almost certainly will hold them in a land trust. However I won’t use them if I plan on transfering title, such as a sub 2. I just don’t like the way it appears. To me, it just reeks of deceiving the lender…whether it’s legal or not, I dont think it’s ethical. I am not saying it IS unethical, I am saying I FEEL IT IS unethical. This is my opinion.
Tony,
I use it for better asset management once I acquire a property. I am able to sell or trade other benefits than just the use and occupancy of a home which traditionally doesn’t bring enough rent or lease income to cover expenses.
For instance, I can trade such items as tax write-off, equity, equity build-up, appreciation and the psychological peace of homeownership, for such commodities as free maintenance, repairs, upkeep, management… and much higher rents.
I also use a land trust because I like the Trustee services. I don’t collect the rent or pay the mortgage, just receive my monthly cash flow payment from the Trustee in the mail.
Actually, although you say they are very complicated, I use it for simplicity.
As to the cost, the tenant pays for it as I don’t require a down payment, just “closing costs” which include my costs of establishing the trust, plus three months lease payments (two of which are held in reserve in the event of a default).
There is nothing wrong with the way you buy subject 2. Like I said, I have used that method for many years. I just prefer using the land trust to do my subject 2. It’s nothing personal at all, just my preference.
Peace
Da Wiz
Actually what is going on is there are many posters on the boards right now that are promoting Gary’s method of investing with almost identical posts to his. The posters who respond are giving the same thumbs down posts, so don’t feel alone.
The real reason this is going on is to try and set aside the adverse publicity that his method is suffering by Attorney General office’s and Consumer Advocates. Naturally this type of publicty causes loss of revenue for those that use this method of investing by the way it is described as “Equity Stripping” in an article the law makers are using to curtail, hinder or stop creative real estate investing.
Having studied marketing and public relations for many years and reading the comments of other posters similiar in nature to yours, I would say the public relations campaign is a flop.
They need to take another tactic, yes being controversal does allow them to hammer at the posters, Trust - Trust - Trust similar to the methods used in the:
“The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in a hostage, in which the hostage exhibits seeming loyalty to the Land Trust-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) the Poster- hostage has been put in.”
Remember also these Land Trust guys have been programmed by “Hippolytus de Marsiliis” or 50 calls a day methodogy of training.
John $Cash$ Locke
So John, does that mean that you do not use land trusts? Do you put them in a LLC or other entity and does that increase the risk of DOS?
Curtis
Curtis,
Glad to meet you.
I do not use Land Trusts, I use a corporate entities to hold title to the property.
Since I have never had a DOS envoked and don’t know anyone who has had in the 11 years I have been doing Subject To deals, does it increase the risk, it does not in my opinion.
John $Cash$ Locke
Wow, glad I line in Minnesota after all! Life is a whole lot simpler here!
Glad to meet you.
You are aware that Minnesota is the headquarters for the National DOS Police, next time you are in Bemidji, check for the people in trench coats hanging out at the recorders office.
John $Cash$ Locke
I’m not scared. I’ll go to Bemidji, pull their trenchcoats over their heads, and kick their butts all the way out of town. They won’t come back.
At closing, the buyer brings in money from somewhere (like a mortgage lender) which pays off and releases the existing mortgage, thus giving clear title to the buyer, who immediately puts a new lien and mortgage on the title. Thus, conventional purchases, even for an encumbered property, always deliver clear title (and usually re-encumber the property).
were you able to get the info on how to do a wrap around and trust so we can get around the lease option law.
David in EL Paso
El Paso Dave,
You might try to contact Tony DiCorpo off line. He’s a fellow Texan and has one way to get 'er done.
Regards,
Albuquerque Dave