Man Obtains $330,000 House for $16

17 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Pretty interesting stuff, kudos to him for researching and acting on it.

Stranger moves into foreclosed home, citing little-knownTexas law | khou.com Houston
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    The neighbors are not happy.


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4314946].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rick B
    The only way to get that guy out of the house is for someone to file a lawsuit and force him to hire an attorney. When the legal fees exceed the value of his possible future ownership he'll leave.

    It might also be possible to get a ruling that he did not find a key and entered the dwelling illegally. In a civil case the Judge only has to feel that it's more likely that he broke in, not that it's likely beyond a reasonable doubt like in a criminal case.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4315036].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I shouldn't say this, but California has a similar law! Heck, there is one thing that is VERY similar that I think is just accepted common law.

    I actually checked that out when my mother moved in with me, against my wishes. She is OUT now, by the way. Anyway, she was SNEAKY, so you never know, maybe she was hoping laws here are like they are in CA. They AREN'T! Apparently, I would have to stop paying property taxes for 15 years. And they would have to move in without my consent, and pay the taxes.

    But california law states that if they stay there 365 days WITHOUT your permission, they can claim it. If a little kid walks across your property for 365 days, against your wishes, it becomes an EASEMENT! If you THEN put up a fence around your place, the person can SUE YOU!

    I WILL say that it is suspicious that the homeless person even THOUGHT about filing a claim. He spent MONTHS of research, but didn't get a job?

    SOMEBODY owns the home in whole or in part though. If the owner came back within a year of walking away, I bet he could get the home. For the mortgage, who could he pay to? The REAL owners apparently aren't stepping forward. AND, if it has been a year or more, and texas has property tax, the squatter would have to pay THAT. Failure to pay in a circumstance such as this would put him at the TOP of the list to be kicked out. The owner COULD pay that. If he has been paying all along, he could claim that the property WASN'T abandoned. So SOMEBODY lost.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4315089].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ragz
    Where's Terry Wygal? He's a member here and a Texas real estate guru. Maybe he could have this guy speak at his next bootcamp, lol!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4315709].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ahlexis
    First off, the guy didn't actually "get" the house. So far he's only gotten access that gives him a temporary place to live, and by filing an adverse possession claim (that's what cost $16, filing the claim with the county), he can live there . . . until the rightful owner of record starts proceedings that will eventually lead to him moving out. In Texas someone doing this has to be there, "open and hostile", for at least 3 continuous years before they have a right to attempt to claim the title. There's also an additional 5 year term, a 10 year term, and a 20 year term, each with its own legal specifics.

    So if the guy is able to live there the entire 3 years non-stop without the owner of record getting him out, then he's got a shot at actually "getting" the house, and by that I mean getting the deed.

    But a well respected real estate attorney (Bill Bronchick, at Legalwiz.com) once told me the quickest and least expensive way to eliminate an adverse possession claim. The thing about adverse possession is, it must be against the owner of record's wishes, in other words, hostile. The attorney's words? Write a letter that grants them permission, and serve it on them and with the court. It removes one of the required legal legs a squatter has to stand on to eventually gain title, hostility or the "against the owner's will" part, and rather quickly. Most banks probably won't want to go there, as it will open the floodgates and put them in an interesting position.

    But considering what the guy has gained, it's a nice way to save a lot of money on rent! Considering paying rent for a house like that might cost $1,500 to $2,500 or more per month, he still comes out ahead.

    The downside is, when the time comes he will most likely be out rather quickly. Texas has some of the quickest eviction laws in the country. Unlike California, where it's a minimum 3-4 month process and where genuine flakes can stretch it to 2 years by using the bankruptcy laws to their advantage, if you miss a rent payment, the landlord can file to have you out and then the sheriff is at your door by the next month. If the landlord is slow with filing his paperwork, then the sheriff is at your door 2 months later instead of one month, as there is a cutoff date to put your paperwork in. Miss the cutoff as a landlord and your paperwork is executed the following month.

    There's a house not too far from me that was a model home that was never lived in even though it was completed back in 2006 where the builder lost it to the lender and the lender is in Canada that is similar to the house this guy is in. They originally listed it @ $520,000, and now the asking price has dropped down somewhere near mid-$300,000s that would probably be an interesting candidate for something similar. Although it's in Houston, not Dallas, when I heard about this it made me pause. For a minute I thought about filing papers and doing what this guy is doing. Only for a minute, though!

    By the way, the laws in California are 5 years for adverse possession, it must be open and hostile, and you must make it obvious you have taken control of the property such as putting up a fence or some other obvious thing that would be noticed. And you have to pay the property taxes for the 5 years in question in order to eventually get the deed.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4318961].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ahlexis
      I heard about this from a different source than the original, and it turns out that the mortgage company has gone out of business! So this guy may actually have a shot . . . provided the mortgage company didn't get taken over by another company.

      As for the keys, I wouldn't be surprised if the original owner that lost it in foreclosure knew him and gave them to him. When losing a house, people are like that sometimes.

      As for the neighbors and their "get the money, buy the house", he DID! He bought the rights to occupy it under adverse possession laws. Would they say that to someone who was renting the property? I doubt it . . . . They're just mad they didn't think of it first!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4319026].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jducey1234
        Good for him. I don't begrudge anyone who is smart and resourceful. Hope it works out for him.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4319040].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by jducey1234 View Post

          Good for him. I don't begrudge anyone who is smart and resourceful. Hope it works out for him.
          Even if he cheated and is in, albeit a small way, part of the housing crises? He brought the OTHER properties DOWN in value, while attempting to deprive someone of an asset that may be part of MANY people's life savings!

          That guy might cost you $10 or more! Investments are SO complicated now, that you may NEVER know. You may have a mutual fund that may have corporate notes that may be tied to a mortgage backed security that may have a thousand homes on it, and this may be one. This guy might have just cost that group probably over $200K.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4319275].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ahlexis
      . . . file a lawsuit and force him to hire an attorney. When the legal fees exceed the value of his possible future ownership he'll leave.
      I doubt it. This guy probably spent his spare time @ law libraries dotting i's and crossing t's before he moved in. It's not a requirement to hire a lawyer in order to fight legal proceedings against you in the US. They call it "in pro se" or "in pro per" or "in representation of oneself".

      It's an interesting thing to watch when you see someone grab the bull by the horns and take on the system. My nephew was like that, fought a probate case so hard he made the probate attorney shudder every time they went to court. And the truth was, the probate attorney was just lazy while at the same time my nephew, energetic. Combine that with catching a judge having a bad day, and who knows what the ruling will likely be? Some judges actually give "pro se" legal defendants quite a bit of latitude in order to make sure the proceedings are fair and impartial. Sometimes not having a lawyer can work in your favor, believe it or not.

      One more thing about this particular situation. The counties favor the person paying the property taxes. So if the homeowner is gone, and the mortgage company out of business, who is paying those taxes? If the answer is neither, and along comes some other guy who moves in and starts paying, the county would rather have the money and so the adverse possession law is designed to give people who are willing to pay taxes on a property without title currently in their name a way to eventually be rewarded for their assisting the county in the shortfall. After all, it's risky to pay property taxes on a property you are not an owner of, and because of the adverse possession the person occupying the property is not automatically entitled to receive reimbursement from the owner of record for the payment. Right now this particular guy is only out of $16. Since tax payments are not due in Texas until around December or so, he's got some breathing room in there. And if they are current then he REALLY has some breathing room, as they don't take the property for not paying property taxes in the first couple of years. But one day he's going to have to start paying, that much is assured.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4319071].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by ahlexis View Post

      But considering what the guy has gained, it's a nice way to save a lot of money on rent! Considering paying rent for a house like that might cost $1,500 to $2,500 or more per month, he still comes out ahead.
      But does he have heating? A/C?

      By the way, the laws in California are 5 years for adverse possession, it must be open and hostile, and you must make it obvious you have taken control of the property such as putting up a fence or some other obvious thing that would be noticed. And you have to pay the property taxes for the 5 years in question in order to eventually get the deed.
      Well, I KNOW it is 365 days for an easement. I thought it was for adverse possession also. And it HAS been over 20 years since I studied it. 8-( The payment of taxes for 5 years doesn't make sense, since I heard about adverse possession in cases where the owner apparently DID pay the tax!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4319132].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ahlexis
    But does he have heating? A/C?
    Heating??? In Dallas, Texas, in the middle of JULY???

    A/C? Probably not.

    But to get it all he would have to do is contact the local energy company and sign up, and let them run a credit check and/or pay a deposit (depending on the credit), and he would most likely be good to go. If he's homeless he's probably used to heat. There's no rule that says you have to be on title to get utilities; people rent all the time and put the utilities in their own name.

    It was 5 years back in 1982 when I took real estate law in college in California. But I have to admit, back then I didn't get into the intricate details of adverse possession.

    The thing about paying the taxes is, if you don't, then eventually the government will foreclose and take it from whoever is there, adverse possessor or not because of the back taxes.

    This guy has hit a perfect storm of an opportunity, though. Right now there are probably numerous other houses in the same situation.

    And as far as Texas goes, some counties have so many properties with back taxes owed that they don't WANT them back because they have too many already on the books that they cannot auction off fast enough (Harris County, home of Houston, for instance). And it costs money to hold an auction, so they don't want to hold one and then have no one show up to buy.

    If you want to look into getting property by just paying the back taxes (in Texas the only thing with higher priority is something that runs with the land, i.e. HOA fees...bank loans get WIPED OUT @ property tax auctions) there are some states that are listing their tax auction properties at Publicans.com - Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP . And here's the thing. Paying the back taxes gets you CLEAR TITLE, not occupancy rights like adverse possession.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4319220].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ahlexis
    The original news blurb I saw about this showed the lender as Bank of America. So if the mortgage company is out of business, I can guess that perhaps it was Countrywide Funding? If that's the case, perhaps those enterprising among us should start running title searches for properties owned by Countrywide Funding, as banks don't automatically change the records in the county when they take over an institution.

    P.S. The counties in Texas have gone "internet". You can run title searches on the county websites. In other words, if you want to find properties in Harris County (Houston and other surrounding cities), go to Harris County Appraisal District and search. Fort Bend, Liberty, Montgomery . . . these are all county names of areas in the Greater Houston area. I know for a fact Fort Bend is online as well, although I cannot remember the exact site.


    EDIT: Fort Bend County is www.fbcad.org
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4319257].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by ahlexis View Post

      The original news blurb I saw about this showed the lender as Bank of America. So if the mortgage company is out of business, I can guess that perhaps it was Countrywide Funding? If that's the case, perhaps those enterprising among us should start running title searches for properties owned by Countrywide Funding, as banks don't automatically change the records in the county when they take over an institution.

      P.S. The counties in Texas have gone "internet". You can run title searches on the county websites. In other words, if you want to find properties in Harris County (Houston and other surrounding cities), go to Harris County Appraisal District and search. Fort Bend, Liberty, Montgomery . . . these are all county names of areas in the Greater Houston area. I know for a fact Fort Bend is online as well, although I cannot remember the exact site.
      NO FAIR! I had countrywide lending. 8-(

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4319279].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay Zee
    BRB everyone. Moving to texas and peeking through windows to find empty houses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4319266].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ahlexis
    Countrywide actually brings back some interesting memories. It was my first gig as a contract IT worker, after leaving the career field of police dispatching. Working @ the corporate office in their heyday and watching how they ran the place was a unique thing to see. It was back when Windows 95 first came out!

    Some lenders hide their foreclosures inside holding companies that don't have banker-sounding names. But once you find one you KNOW is a foreclosure owned by a bank and you have the unbank-like name, you just run a title search for that name to find the other properties they own.

    But Steve, I've got to disagree with you on this statement:

    He brought the OTHER properties DOWN in value, while attempting to deprive someone of an asset that may be part of MANY people's life savings!
    The truth is, those neighbors are just unwilling to accept the fact that, due to homes that are going down in value due to things beyond their control their home values have already gone down. They just haven't felt the pain @ the bank yet because they are not trying to sell their homes today. Because the truth is, if some guy moving in under adverse possession and taking care of an empty property is going to drag the rest of the neighborhood DOWN then they were in deep doodoo already. A vacant house causes more economic damage to the rest of a neighborhood faster than an occupied home, no matter what the terms of occupancy, as long as the occupant behaves like the rest of the neighbors, i.e. doesn't have loud parties, doesn't open the home as a half-way house, doesn't sell drugs or run a meth lab or other drug-related business from the location.

    Another thing is this. Until the backlog of foreclosed homes is cleared off the books and reintegrated into the housing market (as in bought and/or occupied and/or dealt with so that they are back in the hands of property taxpaying homeowners) housing values will continue to decline. All this interference in the normal market corrections are preventing the problem from resolving itself.

    Normally when a market drops to such an drastic place foreign investors come in and pour money into the location and snap up the so-called bargains. A lot of times they bring all cash, which creates stability in the neighborhood. It is already happening in South Florida; Brazilian investors are snatching up the deals left and right. It's happening so often that many of the Realtors in the area are taking up Portuguese in order better communicate with their buyers. Of course, part of the reason is because the Brazilian currency has appreciated something like 45% in the last year or two against the US dollar, so the Brazilians are just taking advantage and getting their money invested outside their home country before the growth slows down so that they can continue the upward investment trend. Plus, while the moneyed and paparazzi-followed in the US may go to Brazil or Italy, the upper class Brazilians like to go to Miami for their vacations.

    Unfortunately for some cities, certain foreigners are afraid to come to the US and buy. I won't say anything more except that Steve Wynn was talking about why Las Vegas is still in the slump it's in sometime in the last week. If you want more details, you'll have to Google it because it veers off into political territory, which is against the rules to talk about in here.

    Another major reason why the real estate market has not recovered quickly enough is because real estate investors in the US don't hire lobbyists in droves. That trend is changing, though; a few years back the Texas real estate investor clubs banded together and hired a lobbyist to represent their interest before the state government. The national investor clubs need to follow suit and with a vengeance. That way someone will be standing there whispering into the Congress(wo)mens' ears like the bankers have their people talking to Congress.

    Another thing that has killed the recovery is the Due On Sale clause in most mortgages. It used to be that someone with better cashflow but a bad credit history could step in and take over payments easily when someone got into financial trouble and needed to sell. But the bankers got greedy because they got cut out of the additional points and fees when someone took over the payments. So they got Congress to pass this law which is mentioned in every loan document that gives the impression that taking over payments is against the law. It's NOT, but the wording implies that it is. It reads something like "except as where prohibited by law, this loan is due on sale". But if you know how to structure the deal properly, it will ALWAYS be prohibited by law to make the loan due on sale. But Mr. J. Q. Public-Homebuyer doesn't know that so assumes that it must be against the law.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4322325].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by ahlexis View Post

      But Steve, I've got to disagree with you on this statement:



      The truth is, those neighbors are just unwilling to accept the fact that, due to homes that are going down in value due to things beyond their control their home values have already gone down. They just haven't felt the pain @ the bank yet because they are not trying to sell their homes today. Because the truth is, if some guy moving in under adverse possession and taking care of an empty property is going to drag the rest of the neighborhood DOWN then they were in deep doodoo already. A vacant house causes more economic damage to the rest of a neighborhood faster than an occupied home, no matter what the terms of occupancy, as long as the occupant behaves like the rest of the neighbors, i.e. doesn't have loud parties, doesn't open the home as a half-way house, doesn't sell drugs or run a meth lab or other drug-related business from the location.
      WHY do people care about the home, huh? WHY? Is it because they have furniture? Well, this guy doesn't, but that isn't it. Is it because someone is there? Past experience shows that even bums not making any noise can cause a hassle. Is it because of the utilities? Well, as I recall, this guy doesn't have any, but who could tell let alone care.

      You know, I moved into a place that has covenants. Why do you supposed they care about those? Could it be to maintain the NEIGHBORHOOD, and HOME VALUES? I think so, so let's go with that.

      Things like not making noise, as you said. Keeping the home in good repair. That means fixing doors, painting, keeping the heat above 55f or so, etc.... Keeping the outside neat, no garbage, keep the lawn mowed/watered, etc... Weed it, etc....

      As for how they shouldn't mind losing another $10,000 because they already lost $100,000, of which this play a part in ALSO, is just silly. Who comes up with these things? How about you send me $10,000! I mean it is ALREADY devalued along with all the rest of the money you have.

      Another thing is this. Until the backlog of foreclosed homes is cleared off the books and reintegrated into the housing market (as in bought and/or occupied and/or dealt with so that they are back in the hands of property taxpaying homeowners) housing values will continue to decline. All this interference in the normal market corrections are preventing the problem from resolving itself.
      RIGHT, so let's get the ownership back where it BELONGS, so we can get into the swing of things again.

      Normally when a market drops to such an drastic place foreign investors come in and pour money into the location and snap up the so-called bargains. A lot of times they bring all cash, which creates stability in the neighborhood. It is already happening in South Florida; Brazilian investors are snatching up the deals left and right. It's happening so often that many of the Realtors in the area are taking up Portuguese in order better communicate with their buyers. Of course, part of the reason is because the Brazilian currency has appreciated something like 45% in the last year or two against the US dollar, so the Brazilians are just taking advantage and getting their money invested outside their home country before the growth slows down so that they can continue the upward investment trend. Plus, while the moneyed and paparazzi-followed in the US may go to Brazil or Italy, the upper class Brazilians like to go to Miami for their vacations.
      So you AGREE!

      Unfortunately for some cities, certain foreigners are afraid to come to the US and buy. I won't say anything more except that Steve Wynn was talking about why Las Vegas is still in the slump it's in sometime in the last week. If you want more details, you'll have to Google it because it veers off into political territory, which is against the rules to talk about in here.
      OH YEAH, it is a shame we can't talk about him. He said a LOT of interesting things lately!

      Another major reason why the real estate market has not recovered quickly enough is because real estate investors in the US don't hire lobbyists in droves. That trend is changing, though; a few years back the Texas real estate investor clubs banded together and hired a lobbyist to represent their interest before the state government. The national investor clubs need to follow suit and with a vengeance. That way someone will be standing there whispering into the Congress(wo)mens' ears like the bankers have their people talking to Congress.
      What we need are FEWER lobbyists!

      Another thing that has killed the recovery is the Due On Sale clause in most mortgages. It used to be that someone with better cashflow but a bad credit history could step in and take over payments easily when someone got into financial trouble and needed to sell. But the bankers got greedy because they got cut out of the additional points and fees when someone took over the payments. So they got Congress to pass this law which is mentioned in every loan document that gives the impression that taking over payments is against the law. It's NOT, but the wording implies that it is. It reads something like "except as where prohibited by law, this loan is due on sale". But if you know how to structure the deal properly, it will ALWAYS be prohibited by law to make the loan due on sale. But Mr. J. Q. Public-Homebuyer doesn't know that so assumes that it must be against the law.
      Well, the acceptance of bad credit was one thing that got us INTO this mess!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4322474].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ahlexis
        What we need are FEWER lobbyists!
        Ordinarily I would agree with you. But in the real estate investment sphere of things, the investor who might bring cash and/or other solutions to buy properties and then a rehab crew that does a bang up good job of fixing the place back to the highest of standards gets screwed over by the lack of lobbyists due to the fact that the big ole too-big-to-fail banks see real estate investors as their competition when it comes to making money in real estate. The investor does the bulk of the hard work, while the bankers generate paperwork and then pitch it off to mortgage-security investors and no longer have any skin in the game. And yet the guys and gals pulling the majority of the hard work of rehab, and oftentimes keeping the properties as rentals but sometimes selling them off and either helping buyers qualify or taking back payments are being short changed by the bankers' lobbyists and their one-sided story-telling ways.

        For instance, in Texas that makes it very financially dangerous to sell a property on what's known as "contract for deed". Under contract for deed you make all the payments before your name gets on title. OK, that seems like taking advantage of somebody maybe. But then when the investors who used to do that switched to selling a property as a lease option or rent-to-own, the Texas legislature came back and passed a law making THAT financially disadvantageous . . . even though many home BUYERS would not have been able to buy a home any other way. That was when the real estate investors clubs in Texas decided it was time to hire a lobbyist, because the law got passed and then later some of the responses from those in the legislature were saying "Wow, I didn't know that" about a lot of the things they had voted and signed into law. They were only hearing one side of the story and passing their laws without seeing the big picture of what they were doing.

        The reason the investors need lobbyists is because they need someone to go to bat for them to fight AGAINST the bankers' lobbyists who are whispering into Congress' ear.

        Well, the acceptance of bad credit was one thing that got us INTO this mess!
        While bad credit can present problems, if someone with bad credit is pulling in $17,000 a month NET and wants to buy a house with a $2,000 a month payment, they should have no problem taking over the payments on a house where the current occupant can no longer scrape together the $2,000 to make the house note because of a job loss or other unfortunate circumstance.

        Because of the way FICO works, that $17,000 per month doesn't mean anything if the guy making it has just suffered a divorce where the ex-wife went on a credit-destroying shopping spree on the way out the door when she left. But he can surely afford the payment! So why should someone like that be penalized?

        The trouble that this country has seen due to bad credit wasn't just about bad credit. It happened because the bankers, while pointing to the computer model that Fair, Isaac & Co is, threw the rule book out the door and into the Dumpster in the back of the parking lot!!! The primary credit rules have always been, character, credit, capacity. FICO was supposed to be based on that. But because it was computer generated, it was hackable, just like every other black box system. And hack it, people did. In those times the bankers were supposed to look at other things such as ability to pay and make good judgments.

        And this "bad credit" problem was also about ethics. The bankers turned a blind eye to things they saw so that they could continue to "get theirs" for as long as possible. The home buyers did things they knew they had no business doing (such as lying on applications, and then if it came back to bite them the response was "the mortgage lender said it was OK" or "the loan officer told me to do it that way"). The buyers trusted the mortgage lenders as professionals instead of taking personal responsibility for their own financial well-being by becoming educated buyers at EXACTLY the moment when someone has the biggest chance to screw you, when you as a home buyer are making what is likely to be the single biggest purchase in your lifetime making a purchase that for many is mostly an emotional one.

        But I can't really get mad at the mortgage loan officers; the system was stacked in such a way that it was more financially beneficial to throw the rule book out. For instance, make a fixed interest, 30 year fully amortized loan, get $550 commission. Make an option-adjustable rate mortgage, amortized in 30 years but due and payable in 7 year loan, get $3,200 commission. PER CUSTOMER!!! Do the math. If you were a loan officer and you wanted YOUR piece of the pie, which one would you try hardest to close more of?

        My main point on that was, the bankers that have these tons of foreclosures on their books have them because they got greedy and didn't realize that the people with bad credit who were buying homes take-over-payments style were also saving THEIR butts, pulling THEIR butts (the bankers' butts) from the fire BY CONTINUING to SEND IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS. After all, if the banker is not in the home-owning business but the write-a-big-check and get-way-more-money-back-in-a-bunch-of-little-checks-for-15-to-30-years business, why should they care who makes the payment as long as the money is there like clockwork? When selling a house take-over-payments style, the original borrower is still on the hook for the loan if the person they sold to doesn't make the payments. Most investors are pretty picky about making sure the home seller knows that because to not have the seller aware of that could potentially get you an engraved invitation to the grey-bar hotel (via indictment and conviction for fraud or theft by deception).

        Just as a footnote on credit issues here . . . did you know that the day he died Michael Jackson's FICO score was around 520? Or that you can pay your bills on time, sometimes even early, every month and STILL have bad credit??? If you have more than enough money to make payments, why should that stop you from buying a house?

        You remember that house I mentioned earlier that's not too far from me? The one where the builder was asking $520,000 and it's now dropped down to somewhere in the mid $300,000s? I had nothing to do with that. And neither did any of the other neighbors. And yet it still sits there, unsold. Thing is, at some point it will sell. But those who bought the homes nearby will take a BIG bath when it does, as some of them paid $470,000+ for a comparable house. But right now, due to uncertainty and a few other issues, it still sits there.

        You know, I moved into a place that has covenants. Why do you supposed they care about those? Could it be to maintain the NEIGHBORHOOD, and HOME VALUES? I think so, so let's go with that.
        OK. Let's go with that. Only time will tell how this particular guy will work out. But I'm telling you, the neighbors are just mad they didn't think of it and research it first!

        The thing about covenants are, they run with the land. They dictate, among other things, how the properties in the neighborhood should look, what is and is not acceptable appearance-wise. If this guy gets furniture, gets a lawnmower, starts taking the same care of this property as all the other neighbors then his being there actually PULLS THEIR PROPERTY VALUES UP not drags them down, as there will no longer be an eye-sore in the neighborhood that is vacant and has weeds growing in the cement cracks in the driveway and the flower beds.

        And you know what? He doesn't really NEED to get furniture in order to be there, that's just a convenience for his internal living space. As long as he keeps up the appearance and the maintenance of the property and acts like a good citizen he has met his burden and the neighbors have nothing to b*tch about.

        And to that end, don't worry about me mentioning Countrywide! LOL! There are more than likely enough foreclosure properties around this good ole United States that each and every Warrior Forum member who wants to pursue this can get at LEAST one house for him/herself if they choose to pursue it. It might take a cast iron stomach, brass b*lls, and a cash register where the heart is supposed to be, but hey! Fortune favors the bold!

        One more thing about this guy and his $16 house he just "got". He might be homeless, but he didn't look homeless in the video I saw. He looked like a lawyer who might have just come from the golf course on his day off. And not all lawyers are rich, so that just might be exactly who he is for all we know . . .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4323637].message }}

Trending Topics