InnoVest Resource Management's Foreclosure Forum

Home Discussion Board "Hands-On" Training Title Holding Trust Speaking Schedule Store Foreclosure Fundamentals Code References 50 State Foreclosure Basics 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 ] My final attempt at getting clarity... Posted by Rick, the Probate Guy on April 13, 2008 at 9:28 AM In Reply to: Re: Am I missing something here? posted by dan on April 12, 2008 at 10:43 AM Dan - These are the two areas where I'm having problem getting clear on, and they're both pretty essential to both strategy and outcome: 1) If a document, such as the Notice of Trustee Sale, was recorded, why do you believe it to have any validity beyond it's face? If you're saying that the recorder mis-referenced it, so what? It's still what it is. Are you suggesting that someone is relying on this document to be something other than the NTS? As I see it, that's all that it is. 2) CA Dept of Health Services DID place involuntary liens on properties of decedent's estates (or last to die, if held jointly and married) but that went away, as I said before, sometime around 1995. Subsequently, Medi-Cal claims are non-secured but have a dual-priority of order of preference in the food chain of creditors. The actual priority isn't really germain to this post. Depending on when the original probate was filed (and I presume never closed, although you leave out that important detail), the Medi-Cal claim may or may not be a lien on the property. It should not be characterized as a judgment. You could buy from the original administrator, or get a successor P/R named, and avoid the second probate (at least as far as buying the property is concerned). It might be cumbersome, but you may have a better element of control than you would if purchased at the sale. All other things being considered, your best bet probably IS to bid at the sale to perfect title, especially if you have reverse engineered title and are satisfied with the chain. Presuming that there would be surplus funds, they would have to be part of the original (or subsequent) probate estate and Medi-Cal would likely gobble up a fair share, maybe even all of it. There are other plays here, but they are proprietary as that is my business. I don't know if I've helped or hampered, but have fun with this either way whether or not you figure out all the different ways to extract money from this situation. Follow Ups: Re: My final attempt at getting clarity... Dan 10:50 AM, 04/13/08 (7) Someone else take a try at his logic, please (NT) Rick, the Probate Guy 1:29 PM, 04/13/08 (6) Ms. Amanpour taking over .... Lughead 8:42 PM, 04/13/08 (5) Re: Ms. Amanpour taking over .... John in SD 9:28 PM, 04/14/08 (4) Re: Ms. Amanpour taking over .... Lughead 11:16 PM, 04/14/08 (3) Re: Ms. Amanpour taking over .... Dan 8:40 AM, 04/15/08 (2) Re: Ms. Amanpour taking over .... lughead 5:08 PM, 04/15/08 (0) Any potential T/S problem due to mis-indexed doc? Rick, the Probate Guy 12:50 AM, 04/15/08 (0) Post a Followup: Name : E-Mail : Subject : Comments: : Dan - These are the two areas where I'm having problem getting clear on, and they're both pretty essential to both strategy and outcome: : 1) If a document, such as the Notice of Trustee Sale, was recorded, why do you believe it to have any validity beyond it's face? If you're saying that the recorder mis-referenced it, so what? It's still what it is. Are you suggesting that someone is relying on this document to be something other than the NTS? As I see it, that's all that it is. : 2) CA Dept of Health Services DID place involuntary liens on properties of decedent's estates (or last to die, if held jointly and married) but that went away, as I said before, sometime around 1995. Subsequently, Medi-Cal claims are non-secured but have a dual-priority of order of preference in the food chain of creditors. The actual priority isn't really germain to this post. : Depending on when the original probate was filed (and I presume never closed, although you leave out that important detail), the Medi-Cal claim may or may not be a lien on the property. It should not be characterized as a judgment. : You could buy from the original administrator, or get a successor P/R named, and avoid the second probate (at least as far as buying the property is concerned). It might be cumbersome, but you may have a better element of control than you would if purchased at the sale. : All other things being considered, your best bet probably IS to bid at the sale to perfect title, especially if you have reverse engineered title and are satisfied with the chain. Presuming that there would be surplus funds, they would have to be part of the original (or subsequent) probate estate and Medi-Cal would likely gobble up a fair share, maybe even all of it. : There are other plays here, but they are proprietary as that is my business. : I don't know if I've helped or hampered, but have fun with this either way whether or not you figure out all the different ways to extract money from this situation. [ 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 © 1997-2008, 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