That's more than those sellers net if they list and get a full price offer.
The audio on your website describing the new foreclosure rescue scam laws is flat-out wrong . . .
Our bill to prevent rescue scams passed, it requires . . . that homeowners must receive at least 82% of the difference between the property’s fair market value and the underlying mortgage in the event they transfer their property to a third party who supposedly is going to keep them out of foreclosure.— Attorney General Robert M. McKenna
Press Release, March 14, 2008
The 82% has to do with the market value of the property itself, NOT the equity. Can you imagine the absurdity if it was based on equity?
Here’s an example . . .
On a $100k house, where $50k is owed, investors according to you are now required to pay $91k ($50k x .82 = $41k, plus $50k owed = $91k).
That’s more than those sellers net if they list and get a full price offer.
On that same home, only this time with $75k owed, investors would be required to pay $95.5k ($25k x .82 = $20.5k, plus $75k owed = $95.5k).
Or, maybe that’s what you really believe to be fair?
You’ve also said, “. . . in the event they transfer their property to a third party who supposedly is going to keep them out of foreclosure.”
When I saw this originally, I assumed it was designed to be an “anti-flipping” statute, because if I’m transacting with John and Mary, it’s just me and them, two parties.
Who’s the third party if there’s just the two of us?
Or, does the 82% requirement, as you seem to suggest in this audio, only apply when an investor ties up a property on a distressed property conveyance type deal and flips to some other investor?
That can’t be right, either.
A Very Simple Bill
Perhaps it doesn’t matter because that third party language no longer shows up and apparently, was rejected in the rewriting.
Or, maybe it shows up in one of the other ancillary bills?
If so, I didn’t see it.
Again, if it’s so very simple, how is it no one seems to be able to figure out what it says, including you?
And one final point . . . the language is particularly offensive.
Give us a break. Do you seriously think we investors deserve that sort of treatment from your office?
And by the way . . . they’re already in foreclosure. What we do is not “supposedly . . . keep them out of foreclosure.”
What we do is stop the damn thing.
In the arena,