InnoVest Resource Management's Foreclosure Forum

Home Discussion Board "Hands-On" Training Title Holding Trust Speaking Schedule Store Foreclosure Codes 50 State Resource Data Foreclosure Glossary Foreclosure Statistics 60+ Yrs Interest Rates Fillable Forms Archived Articles Dingbat Retirement Plan Links Contact / Map Home

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ] Just do, debating won't make you richer... Posted by Ward-CA- on August 05, 2003 at 0:41 AM In Reply to: The Due-on-Sale debate posted by Daniel-CA-AZ on August 04, 2003 at 3:02 PM : Hello Ward, it was great meeting you last week, thanks again. : Here are two diametrically opposed articles on the due-on-sale issue, both written by lawyers. I would love to hear your thoughts on this after reading them both: : William Bronchick's "There is No 'Due on Sale Jail'": : http://www.texasrealestateclub.com/articles/bronchick/nodosjail.html : And John T. Reed's "The truth about getting around due-on-sale clauses": : http://www.johntreed.com/dueonsale.html : Please let me know what you think about this very important topic. It seems like this is a key issue to working the preforeclosure business. I am very concerned about playing fair and firmly staying on the right side of legal and ethical considerations for all business purposes. : - Daniel -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Daniel, I have been buying property, “subject to” existing financing for a long, long time— ever since 1978 when Fred Crane, Esq. won the pivotal, landmark case in CA’s Supreme Court (Wallenkamp vs Bank of America). The supreme court justices in CA held in that case that lenders could only enforce the “due-on-sale” clause in their loans if they could show that the sale of the secured property to a non-approved buyer materially lessened the security of their loans. That rule stood for four years, until 1982 when the federally charted banks and S&L’s bankrolled the federal Garn-St Germain Act in Congress that created a federal law on the efficacy of the “due-on-sale” clause. Since federal law is superior to state law, our four year heyday was over. I agree with Bill Bronchick’s position on the due-on-sale issue so much that I have reproduced his “No Due-On-Sale Jail” article and include it in my title holding trust manual. I like John T. Reed’s rationale on most every other subject except this one. And on this issue, we can’t be more wide apart if we tried. I guess you personally don’t own more than four houses. Because if you did you’d know that FNMA (Fannie Mae) won’t buy a loan from any bank wherein the borrower owns more than four houses. So I was prevented from adding more houses to my portfolio beyond four, no matter if I tried to get a new loan for one or if I tried to assume the existing financing on one. Since I wanted to own a lot more than just four houses, I was forced to buy “subject to”. And that’s why I now enjoy rents from 16 houses instead of just four houses. If I followed the tenets of Reed, FNMA, etc. I’d not be able to enjoy the economic independence I currently possess. And I don’t feel like I’m wrong in any respect, since I’m on the side championed by the California Supreme Court, Bill Bronchick, Esq., Fred Crane, Esq., and the thousands of property owners far and wide who own more than four houses everywhere in these United States. Follow Ups: Post a Followup: Name : E-Mail : Subject : Comments: : : Hello Ward, it was great meeting you last week, thanks again. : : Here are two diametrically opposed articles on the due-on-sale issue, both written by lawyers. I would love to hear your thoughts on this after reading them both: : : William Bronchick's "There is No 'Due on Sale Jail'": : : http://www.texasrealestateclub.com/articles/bronchick/nodosjail.html : : And John T. Reed's "The truth about getting around due-on-sale clauses": : : http://www.johntreed.com/dueonsale.html : : Please let me know what you think about this very important topic. It seems like this is a key issue to working the preforeclosure business. I am very concerned about playing fair and firmly staying on the right side of legal and ethical considerations for all business purposes. : : - Daniel : -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- : Daniel, : I have been buying property, “subject to” existing financing for a long, long time— ever since 1978 when Fred Crane, Esq. won the pivotal, landmark case in CA’s Supreme Court (Wallenkamp vs Bank of America). : The supreme court justices in CA held in that case that lenders could only enforce the “due-on-sale” clause in their loans if they could show that the sale of the secured property to a non-approved buyer materially lessened the security of their loans. : That rule stood for four years, until 1982 when the federally charted banks and S&L’s bankrolled the federal Garn-St Germain Act in Congress that created a federal law on the efficacy of the “due-on-sale” clause. Since federal law is superior to state law, our four year heyday was over. : I agree with Bill Bronchick’s position on the due-on-sale issue so much that I have reproduced his “No Due-On-Sale Jail” article and include it in my title holding trust manual. : I like John T. Reed’s rationale on most every other subject except this one. And on this issue, we can’t be more wide apart if we tried. : I guess you personally don’t own more than four houses. Because if you did you’d know that FNMA (Fannie Mae) won’t buy a loan from any bank wherein the borrower owns more than four houses. So I was prevented from adding more houses to my portfolio beyond four, no matter if I tried to get a new loan for one or if I tried to assume the existing financing on one. : Since I wanted to own a lot more than just four houses, I was forced to buy “subject to”. And that’s why I now enjoy rents from 16 houses instead of just four houses. : If I followed the tenets of Reed, FNMA, etc. I’d not be able to enjoy the economic independence I currently possess. : And I don’t feel like I’m wrong in any respect, since I’m on the side championed by the California Supreme Court, Bill Bronchick, Esq., Fred Crane, Esq., and the thousands of property owners far and wide who own more than four houses everywhere in these United States. 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 © 1997-2003, 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