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 ] Pay what you have to now, get tough after the reinstatement. Posted by Ward-CA- on June 17, 2002 at 7:17 AM In Reply to: Reinstatement and Lender charges posted by Jim on June 16, 2002 at 3:52 PM I hold a 2nd on a property where 1st lender has published for the trustee sale. Trustor, a separated mother with 4 children, filed ch 7 BK, 10 days prior to 1st lenders Notice of Sale. The property has marginal equity except for my note purchase discount. : I have met with the BK Trustee and proposed an arrangement where if all agreed, I reinstate the 1st, take title to property by Grant Deed in Lieu of Forclosure and Trustor can remain in property for agreed upon time (she has tried to rent other property but no luck while she is in BK) if she will keep property neat and show property to prospective buyers. BK Trustee likes proposal, but I have found questionable charges by 1st lender on reinstatement figures. : Principal, late charges and interest ok. Escrow payment $1,241., Misc. Exps. $1,524. and Future Expenses $2,096. appear to me to be excessive. Escrow ok, but misc and future expenses of over $3,600.? Are these charges legitimate? Can reinstatement charges be questioned or are we at the mercy of the Lender? Would BK Trustee have any influence on Lender? I almost forgot, 1st lender has petitioned for relief from stay. : Since we have passed the 35 day (Nevada) reinstatement period, I do not want to push 1st lender to the point of not allowing reinstatement. : Any comments or ideas will be greatly appreciated. : Just trying to do the right thing! : Thanks! =•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•= Jim, My assumption in these situations is, if the 1st lender has nothing to hide, she shouldn’t object to breaking out and detailing the miscelaneous and future expenses amounting to over $3,600. But if she reacts negatively then she is probably hiding unsubstantiated deductions. The question of whether you’re entitled to question the legitimacy of the charges is apropos. In my humble opinion, I think you’re entitled to question any expense you have to pay in order to protect your lien interest, but I’d do it delicately in order to get the other side’s cooperation. The most successful way I’ve discovered is to state that your wants a breakdown for tax purposes. Pay whatever you finally agree with the 1st trust deed holder, and then if you think the charges were unfair, go for a reimbursement via your small claims court. Follow Ups: Post a Followup: Name : E-Mail : Subject : Comments: : I hold a 2nd on a property where 1st lender has published for the trustee sale. Trustor, a separated mother with 4 children, filed ch 7 BK, 10 days prior to 1st lenders Notice of Sale. The property has marginal equity except for my note purchase discount. : : I have met with the BK Trustee and proposed an arrangement where if all agreed, I reinstate the 1st, take title to property by Grant Deed in Lieu of Forclosure and Trustor can remain in property for agreed upon time (she has tried to rent other property but no luck while she is in BK) if she will keep property neat and show property to prospective buyers. BK Trustee likes proposal, but I have found questionable charges by 1st lender on reinstatement figures. : : Principal, late charges and interest ok. Escrow payment $1,241., Misc. Exps. $1,524. and Future Expenses $2,096. appear to me to be excessive. Escrow ok, but misc and future expenses of over $3,600.? Are these charges legitimate? Can reinstatement charges be questioned or are we at the mercy of the Lender? Would BK Trustee have any influence on Lender? I almost forgot, 1st lender has petitioned for relief from stay. : : Since we have passed the 35 day (Nevada) reinstatement period, I do not want to push 1st lender to the point of not allowing reinstatement. : : Any comments or ideas will be greatly appreciated. : : Just trying to do the right thing! : : Thanks! : =•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•=•= : Jim, : My assumption in these situations is, if the 1st lender has nothing to hide, she shouldn’t object to breaking out and detailing the miscelaneous and future expenses amounting to over $3,600. But if she reacts negatively then she is probably hiding unsubstantiated deductions. : The question of whether you’re entitled to question the legitimacy of the charges is apropos. In my humble opinion, I think you’re entitled to question any expense you have to pay in order to protect your lien interest, but I’d do it delicately in order to get the other side’s cooperation. The most successful way I’ve discovered is to state that your wants a breakdown for tax purposes. : Pay whatever you finally agree with the 1st trust deed holder, and then if you think the charges were unfair, go for a reimbursement via your small claims court. 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