And there it is . . .

Posted June 13th, 2008 by Joe Kaiser

For these transactions to turn out economically positive for both parties is just so difficult as to be beyond probability.

Dear Rob,

You may recall my post earlier this month when I suggested . . .

The next thing you will do is attempt to distance yourself from this ridiculous new foreclosure law, and you’ll do that by saying the bill as passed wasn’t the bill you’d intended.

You’ll say it got hijacked in committee and the folks who got in there and screwed it up are to blame, not you.

And you’ll be pointing the finger at Brian Weinstein to name just one. — June 2, 2008 Pushed to
HB 2791 – What Happens Next?

New HB 2971 Article

Today’s Spokesmans Review has an article about the new law, and it’s not what you’d call favorable. But of interest to me are David Huey’s comments.

Here’s part of the article . . .

The Washington attorney general’s office, which proposed the legislation to protect consumers but watched as it was amended, says the law is unnecessarily broad. The office will advocate during the next legislative session to exempt Realtors, and likely won’t enforce the law against real estate agents except for “substantive” violations, said Assistant Attorney General David Huey.

While the original shorter version of the bill passed the House unedited, it was amended in the Senate to include the concept of foreclosure consultants.

So close.

The leaseback deal

It continues . . .

Huey drafted what became House Bill 2791 at the request of Attorney General Rob McKenna. It was intended to strictly regulate “distressed home conveyances” – when an owner relinquishes control of a home under the premise he or she can stay in the property and lease it with an option to buy or receive a portion of sale proceeds. About 18 states have similar protections, he said.

Such schemes might let the owner keep a house for six months or a year, but owners typically lose, Huey said.


And the article continues . . .

It is a particularly seductive representation to tell somebody who’s facing foreclosure that you’re going to save them, that you’re going to keep them in that house,” Huey said. “For these transactions to turn out economically positive for both parties is just so difficult as to be beyond Article
June 12, 2008

Come again, Dave?


For these transactions to turn out economically positive for both parties is just so difficult as to be beyond probability.AAG David W. Huey

Did he really just say that, Rob?


As Dave suggests, it is difficult to create the sort of foreclosure transactions that “turn out positive for both parties.” Inordinately difficult, (and best left to the pros).

But beyond probability?

We did something like 30 of them . . . and have a couple dozen going right now. An unbiased observer would look at our track record and conclude pretty much 100% of our partnership deals turned out as planned . . .

Owners are all still in their homes, they’re all happy, satisfied, and they have more equity today than when we saved them from foreclosure.

Beyond probability?

We made it happen virtually every time we got involved.

Nothing Personal, Dave

So, Rob, having pulled off what even Dave confirms is a near impossibility (dozens of successful foreclosure rescues), your office has sued me, calling these transactions foreclosure rescue scams.


After all these years you still can’t appreciate the art and beauty of the foreclosure rescue deals we do?

Good grief.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Be the first to comment on this post.

Post a Comment

Enter Your Details:

You may write the following basic XHTML Strict in your comments:
<a href="" title=""></a> · <acronym title=""></acronym> · <abbr title=""></abbr>
<blockquote cite=""></blockquote> · <code></code> · <strong></strong> · <em></em>

  • If you’re a first-time commenter, your response will be moderated.
  • If your response includes a link, it will require moderator approval.
Enter Your Comments:

Note: This is the end of the usable page. The image(s) below are preloaded for performance only.