InnoVest Resource Management's Foreclosure Forum

Home Discussion Board "Hands-On" Training Title Holding Trust Speaking Schedule Store Code References 50 State Resource Data Foreclosure Glossary Foreclosure Statistics 70+ Yrs Interest Rates Fillable Forms Archived Articles Dingbat Retirement Plan Links Contact / Map About Us Home

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ] Not that simple Posted by Rick, the Probate Guy on August 10, 2006 at 5:12 PM In Reply to: Re: Overage dispute posted by Jerry - Ca. on August 10, 2006 at 4:26 PM The surplus funds themselves will probably be interpleaded by the foreclosure trustee who doesn't want to be in the middle of a dispute about who is entitled to get the dough. However, I disagree with the legal logic here, although the ethics are clearly pretty shakey. We don't know whether this Deed was, in fact, executed prior to the end of the five day right of rescission by a covered seller. In fact, we don't know if this was an owner-occupied property at all. So, without knowing that timeline and the simple facts, we can't assume that the flakey "buyer" violated and CC1695 codes. As far as recording the deed, that might even be valid, even though the buyer clearly defrauded the seller by not making good on the terms of the sale (meaning that the seller did not get the benefit of the bargain). We don't even know if there was, in fact, any written agreement as to what the terms and consideration were to be, so we can't jump ahead on this issue, either. Lastly, if it can be shown that consideration was to be paid (we would think so) then the seller (now homeless) might have to sue the buyer for a judgment and ultimately get a vendor's lien. I know that this is not a very popular response to the original post but I think that this could be a very real scenario. It says a lot about what sellers (and untrained investors) don't understand about real estate law. I'm certainly no attorney however I do know that these things are not simple, cheap or easy to resolve. I wouldn't want to be in either party's shoes. The foreclosing trustee would be wise to get out of the middle of this one a.s.a.p. Just my 19 cents worth. Anybody else have an INFORMED opinion? Follow Ups: Re: Not that simple Bob 6:05 PM, 08/10/06 (5) Clarification Bob 6:07 PM, 08/10/06 (4) Re: Clarification ag 1:49 AM, 08/12/06 (0) Re: Clarification Rick, the Probate Guy 7:08 PM, 08/10/06 (2) Here's my take: JK (the other JK) 8:08 AM, 08/12/06 (1) Re: Here's my take: Lughead 5:18 PM, 08/12/06 (0) Post a Followup: Name : E-Mail : Subject : Comments: : The surplus funds themselves will probably be interpleaded by the foreclosure trustee who doesn't want to be in the middle of a dispute about who is entitled to get the dough. : However, I disagree with the legal logic here, although the ethics are clearly pretty shakey. : We don't know whether this Deed was, in fact, executed prior to the end of the five day right of rescission by a covered seller. In fact, we don't know if this was an owner-occupied property at all. So, without knowing that timeline and the simple facts, we can't assume that the flakey "buyer" violated and CC1695 codes. : As far as recording the deed, that might even be valid, even though the buyer clearly defrauded the seller by not making good on the terms of the sale (meaning that the seller did not get the benefit of the bargain). We don't even know if there was, in fact, any written agreement as to what the terms and consideration were to be, so we can't jump ahead on this issue, either. : Lastly, if it can be shown that consideration was to be paid (we would think so) then the seller (now homeless) might have to sue the buyer for a judgment and ultimately get a vendor's lien. : I know that this is not a very popular response to the original post but I think that this could be a very real scenario. It says a lot about what sellers (and untrained investors) don't understand about real estate law. I'm certainly no attorney however I do know that these things are not simple, cheap or easy to resolve. I wouldn't want to be in either party's shoes. : The foreclosing trustee would be wise to get out of the middle of this one a.s.a.p. : Just my 19 cents worth. Anybody else have an INFORMED opinion? Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL: [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ] WWWAdmin 2.0a © 1997 Matt Wright and DBasics Software Company, All Rights Reserved

Information provided by this website is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional advice. Please consult your investment advisor and/or attorney before entering into any transaction. Read our privacy policy.

Copyright © 1997-2006, InnoVest Resource Management
http://www.foreclosureforum.com

InnoVest Resource Management, 4569-A Mission Gorge Place, San Diego CA 92120-4112
(619) 283-5444, Fax (619) 283-5455