Dave,
I will do the same.
John $Cash$ Locke
You deleted my first post so I’ll try again. I agree to the truce as well. However, John, the bodily function contains the letter “h”, and you did make personal slurs. I quote: “have you no shame about what you do to the ederly or anyone else you deal with as a matter of fact.”
Have a peaceful and stressless day sunning yourself in the Las Vegas smog. I’ll be there next month and will have to look you up.
Da Wiz
Gary,
I am only going by what I read in an article and if you personally follow the plan outlined in the writers comments and statements made, then what he said was part of your plan, not my plan, but your method of investing.
If this statement was made “stay unassociated with the end results, and caring costs money”, which means to me, evict the old lady and do not look back, because it is the end result and if you cared it would cost you money.
Maybe you have another expaination of what this means, to me it means shame on you or anyone else for doing this.
John $Cash$ Locke
John,
As a lifetime rehabilitation counselor, I could never kick out an old lady, too soft-hearted. You know that I don’t handle foreclosures, and that I share future profits with my tenant and occasionally with the seller. In fact, I have been criticized on this very forum for sharing. I am as outraged as anyone when people take advantage of others and it is not my way of doing business. Dave is apparently knowledgeable about the case you mentioned. I am not.
Da Wiz
Gary,
Now we agree, I too am to soft hearted, when I have walked in a property to see one box of cereal on the table and kids around looking like they haven’t had a meal in weeks, the next step I take is to the grocery store, to hell with the house or if I do purchase it I overpay to the point the family can go on with their lives with some dignity.
So you can see why someone saying “caring costs money” would get the hair on the back of my neck standing up.
Not that tuff on folks and it has paid back 10 fold,
John $Cash$ Locke
Absolutely. That’s why if Bill said it, it was in jest because you and I both know Bill and his heart is big.
John,
For a little better insight into my character, please review the thread at Real Estate Investing | Sub2, Owner Finance, Options, Lease Options Forum entitled WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?
I think this is where our initial misunderstanding started. I think re-reading the thread will help you understand why I started feeling attacked. Glad this is over, buy you a beer next time I’m in Vegas?
Regards,
Dave
Dave,
Just remember some of $Cash$'s rules of posting.
Accept that some days you’re the pigeon, and some days you’re the statue.
Always keep your words soft and sweet, just in case you have to eat them.
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
If you can’t be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.
It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.
Never put both feet in your mouth at the same time, because then you won’t have a leg to stand on.
John $Cash$ Locke
Gary,
Agenda?? What agenda? Is this the pot calling the kettle black?
I would have responded to you earlier, but I have been away from my computer for a few days.
For some reason, you keep thinking that I believe that violating the DOS is against the law. It is NOT. Violating the DOS is no big deal.
Where I see the fraud in using the trust is HOW the property is transferred, not the fact it was transferred. If the property was transferred in the open public and not trying to hide the fact from the lender, I would have no problem.
The reason I brought up the lender fraud accusation was based upon what YOU have said. In some of your previous posts, YOU have used the words conceal and hide when you have talked about this trust. Use of those words scare the “H” out of me because they are also associated with lender fraud.
The ACT specifically states “…which does not relate to a transfer of rights of occupancy in the property.”
PLEASE explain how do you transfer 90% of the seller’s interest in the property without violating this part of the ACT???
PLEASE also explain how you evict someone without a transfer of rights of occupancy violation??
Thank you in advance.
You have already demonstrated your lack of knowledge and understanding about landtrusts and this question is just a repeat.
You say you transfer 90% of the seller’s interest in the property. You can’t. The trustee owns the property, not you. You transfer 90% of the seller’s interest in the trust (personal property, and a whole other animal). The seller has the right to do that anytime in a trust. It’s legal – get over it.
The eviction process is easily accomplished under the terms of the separate occupancy agreement. Remember, the tenant is also an owner of the trust and agrees to relinquish his ownership interest if he falls into default. This is all done under the auspices of our legal department, has been for 22 years, and lender fraud has NEVER been an issue.
What you say “you see” means nothing. Where you see fraud, lawyers and legal and financial professionals as well as judges do not. The next question becomes: Who are you?
Thank you for your quick reply,
I quote from your previous post “Where you see fraud, lawyers and legal and financial professionals as well as judges do not.”
Please post the cases, you are referring to showing that the NARS Trust is legal to use.
Despite an almost universal ignorance of land trusts, the fact remains that anyone residing in, and making payments on, a property owned by a revocable, beneficiary directed, inter-vivos [“Illinois-type”] title-holding land trust , need only be made a co-beneficiary in it, in order to reap the myriad benefits of homeownership. For the resident beneficiary, this trust/lease arrangement actually provides pride of ownership, use, occupancy, equity build-up, appreciation and income tax write-off [Belden, 70 TCM 274, Dec. 50,802(M) re. IRC Reg. §1.163-1(b); IRC 163 (h)4(D); Rev. Rul. 92-0105, etc.].
An Agreement for Use and Possession between the trustee and the new co-beneficiary is created, whereupon the IRS characterizes the resident beneficiary as an owner of an “IRC §163 Qualified Property,” even though the real estate has itself been converted by the land trust to personalty. [See IRC §163(h)4(D) pertinent to real property held in estates and certain trusts, in which ownership is characterized as personal property].
The Garn-St.Germain Act of 1982, passed by Congress and now Federal law, is what makes the NARS Trust legal. I am not an attorney and do not have access to any cases that may have unsuccessfully challenged the trust. There has never been a successful challenge.
So the way I interpret your answer is that you don’t know if using the NARS trust is legal or not, only that using a trust is legal based upon the Garn-St.Germain Act of 1982.
It seems to me that a lender really doesn’t care about who pays the mortgage as long as it is current and they get paid, or they would have challenged the transfer within the trust by now. Do you think this is why it has not been challenged?
i am still confused at this sub2 thing. so you assume responsibility for the mortgage (I.E making payments), and the people on the mortgage live there for free? I’m not understanding.
Thats a nice profile Gary.
millionaireshaun,
You own a home worth $100K and have little equity. You want to buy another home and are willing to stay on your current loan for 3 years. You place the property in a land trust and deed it to your Trustee.
You retain a 50% ownership interest in the trust and triple net lease it to a tenant/resident beneficiary to whom you grant a 50% interest in the trust. Your tenant now has complete responsibility for mortgage payments and maintenance and repairs. He is entitled to writeoff mortgage interest and property taxes. You share future appreciation with him 50/50. Your trustee collects the rent, pays the mortgage and sends you your positive cash flow each month.
===========================
Boob, perhaps the '60;s were too good to you. You don’t appear to be able to grasp concepts very well. The NARS Trust may have been challenged over the 22 years it has been in existence, but never successfully. Land trusts have been used in the US for 100 years.
I have answered all your questions diligently. Now you can answer a few. What is your name? Come out of the closet. Why are you interested in the land trust? What method of acquiring and managing property do you use? It appears that your only goal is to try to cloud the issue re land trusts. I await your answers.
millionaireshaun,
Glad to meet you,
This link will help you get started on understanding Subject To investing.
http://www.reiclub.com/articles/sub2-beginner-investing
John $Cash$ Locke
Thanks, Greg. Compliments are a rare commodity around here.
Gary,
Per your last answer to me “The NARS Trust may have been challenged over the 22 years it has been in existence, but never successfully.”
Please site some of the cases where it has been challenged.
Thank you in advance
I said MAY, I know of no cases. I am not an attorney and do not have access to any cases that may have unsuccessfully challenged the trust. There has never been a successful challenge. The NARS Trust was developed in CA with the blessing of the board of realtors according to its founder, Bill Gatten.