InnoVest Resource Management's Foreclosure Forum

Discussion Board "Hands-On" Training Title Holding Trust Speaking Schedule Foreclosure Codes 50 State Foreclosure Basics Foreclosure Glossary 60+ Yrs Interest Rates News & Trends FAQ Dingbat Retirement Plan Links Contact / Map Home

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ] Re: Ca. 4 year period for pre-foreclosure owner to sue Posted by Ward-CA- on May 17, 2002 at 7:38 PM In Reply to: Ca. 4 year period for pre-foreclosure owner to sue posted by Gina on May 16, 2002 at 4:58 PM : Hi Ward: : Two more questions that I have about pre-foreclosure that I : would appreciate getting your perspective upon. : After purchasing the property that is in pre-foreclosure I : understand that you cannot purchase a property for under 70% : of value. The other part that I seem to be reading more and : more about is that in CA the owner of record can come back and : sue for a 4 year period. Is this correct? Does an Estoppel : Agreement protect against this? Also the forms from First : Tuesday? : Also the title companies keep mentioning the terms : "unjust enrichment" and "unconsciousable advantage" ... : how are these items determined? Does the title company determine : this and then determine if they will provide title insurance? : Thanks. =•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•= #1. Forget the 70% rule nowadays. What courts want to see in disputes over unconscionable advantage is what the split is between the buyer and seller. The closer it is to 50/50 the more acceptable it is. #2. The 4 year rule is applicable if the equity seller has a legitimate complaint about the deal. #3. The admissions in the typical estoppel agreement where the equity seller agrees that she understands she is unequivocally selling the property and that the sales price is reasonable given the urgency, condition of the premises, etc. are all fine. And the fact she attested to these facts under free will and without coercion could go a long way towards mitigating the lopsidedness of the deal a few years later. #4. The “first tuesday” forms are fine. #5. Title companies will never put themselves in the position of being the arbiter of what’s unjust and unconscionable. It would increase their involvement in subsequent litigation. Hope this helps. Follow Ups: Post a Followup: Name : E-Mail : Subject : Comments: : : Hi Ward: : : Two more questions that I have about pre-foreclosure that I : : would appreciate getting your perspective upon. : : After purchasing the property that is in pre-foreclosure I : : understand that you cannot purchase a property for under 70% : : of value. The other part that I seem to be reading more and : : more about is that in CA the owner of record can come back and : : sue for a 4 year period. Is this correct? Does an Estoppel : : Agreement protect against this? Also the forms from First : : Tuesday? : : Also the title companies keep mentioning the terms : : "unjust enrichment" and "unconsciousable advantage" ... : : how are these items determined? Does the title company determine : : this and then determine if they will provide title insurance? : : Thanks. : =•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•= : #1. Forget the 70% rule nowadays. What courts want to see in disputes over unconscionable advantage is what the split is between the buyer and seller. The closer it is to 50/50 the more acceptable it is. : #2. The 4 year rule is applicable if the equity seller has a legitimate complaint about the deal. : #3. The admissions in the typical estoppel agreement where the equity seller agrees that she understands she is unequivocally selling the property and that the sales price is reasonable given the urgency, condition of the premises, etc. are all fine. And the fact she attested to these facts under free will and without coercion could go a long way towards mitigating the lopsidedness of the deal a few years later. : #4. The “first tuesday” forms are fine. : #5. Title companies will never put themselves in the position of being the arbiter of what’s unjust and unconscionable. It would increase their involvement in subsequent litigation. : Hope this helps. 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.

Copyright © 1997-2002, InnoVest Resource Management

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