|
Foreclosure Forum |
|
|
Another thought Jerry...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. : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX : : 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,
Could it not be argued/litigated that this is an interest in the property? Just something to think about. Good Luck, Follow Ups: Post a Followup:
|
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