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 ] Re: I Disagree Posted by Bill H on April 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM In Reply to: Re: I Disagree posted by Jerry - Ca. on April 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM : Bill: : The code statute cited specifically uses the legal term "option". By definition (as defined in the "Foreclosure Glossary at the left) there is no way that a "first right of refusal" can be legally construed as an "option" or the giving of an "equitable interest" in the property! There is no time limit set ... No price set ... No terms of prchase spelled out ... No consideration given ... Etc.! : Jerry-CA. Not discussing "Option"...every "First Right of Refusal" that I have ever used or seen clearly spell out the terms and condtions, price, etc. There is no time limit set ...When you have a vaild acceptable offer is certainly a time definite. No price set ...The amount that must be paid in order to exercise the first right. No terms of prchase spelled out ...The same as in the acceptable excrow. No consideration given ...Must be the same as in the acceptable offer for the exercise. All this looks to me like your intent was that the prior owner has some right. Am not intereste in agruing with you. Just interested in pointing out what might happen, what with all the subrime and foreclosure mess we are in. All it would take is one energetic young attorney looking to get his name in the law journals...That was all it took for Kathy Wellenkamp to challenge BoA and we got the Due on Sale. I still think the best is "I bought the property PERIOD." If you want it back...you gotta do it on you own. I am NOT giving you any possible future rights. Would be interesting to see what the courts think in today's litigous world. Good Luck, Bill H : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX : : I disagree that giving a right of first refusal will solve he problem. : : What they are being sued on is "What is/was the INTENT of the transaction" : : If you give an "Option" to the former owner...CLEARLY the intent was that they have some right to repurchase. : : If you give a "Right of First Refusal" to the former owner...again... CLEARLY the intent was that they have some right to repurchase. : : In both cases it can be argued that what you did was give them and equitable mortgage and the right to repurchase. : : Michigan, I believe, has such a statute for pre-foreclosure. : : If it were me...I buy the house..PERIOD...if at some later time they wish to re-purchase I might consider it BUT under NO curcumstances woudl I give them any clearly defined "rights to repurchase." : : Good Luck, : : Bill H Follow Ups: Post a Followup: Name : E-Mail : Subject : Comments: : : Bill: : : The code statute cited specifically uses the legal term "option". By definition (as defined in the "Foreclosure Glossary at the left) there is no way that a "first right of refusal" can be legally construed as an "option" or the giving of an "equitable interest" in the property! There is no time limit set ... No price set ... No terms of prchase spelled out ... No consideration given ... Etc.! : : Jerry-CA. : : Not discussing "Option"...every "First Right of Refusal" that I have ever used or seen clearly spell out the terms and condtions, price, etc. : There is no time limit set ...When you have a vaild acceptable offer is certainly a time definite. : No price set ...The amount that must be paid in order to exercise the first right. : No terms of prchase spelled out ...The same as in the acceptable excrow. : No consideration given ...Must be the same as in the acceptable offer for the exercise. : All this looks to me like your intent was that the prior owner has some right. : Am not intereste in agruing with you. Just interested in pointing out what might happen, what with all the subrime and foreclosure mess we are in. All it would take is one energetic young attorney looking to get his name in the law journals...That was all it took for Kathy Wellenkamp to challenge BoA and we got the Due on Sale. : I still think the best is "I bought the property PERIOD." If you want it back...you gotta do it on you own. I am NOT giving you any possible future rights. : Would be interesting to see what the courts think in today's litigous world. : Good Luck, : Bill H : : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX : : : I disagree that giving a right of first refusal will solve he problem. : : : What they are being sued on is "What is/was the INTENT of the transaction" : : : If you give an "Option" to the former owner...CLEARLY the intent was that they have some right to repurchase. : : : If you give a "Right of First Refusal" to the former owner...again... CLEARLY the intent was that they have some right to repurchase. : : : In both cases it can be argued that what you did was give them and equitable mortgage and the right to repurchase. : : : Michigan, I believe, has such a statute for pre-foreclosure. : : : If it were me...I buy the house..PERIOD...if at some later time they wish to re-purchase I might consider it BUT under NO curcumstances woudl I give them any clearly defined "rights to repurchase." : : : Good Luck, : : : Bill H [ 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