Understanding the Dynamics of Subject to the Existing Loan

[mtnwizard]

Poor John.  You know I don't handle foreclosures, and I have never had a seller remain as the tenant.  If I did, and the tenant couldn't afford to stay in the property, she would still retain all her equity and we would simply replace her with a sub-lessee and assist with moving expenses.  Nice cheap shot though, John.  It wasn't too transparent.

[$Cash$]

Gary,

I did not write this article, so cheap shot is not appropriate, tell it to the person who wrote it, only have them play the tape of what was said at this seminar.

Just answer the question do you use this method to do your land trusts that is referred to in this article?  

If this is the company you keep then the brand falls on you also.

John $Cash$ Locke

[David A. Hurlbrink]

John,
  You know good and well those remarks were taken out of context. Having met the man personally as I know you have, I say Shame on you!!
  While I hope my RB's all purchase the home as agreed, I pop a bottle of champagne if I have to evict since it means another payday. So what? I did exactly what I said I would, they didn't. Next. I run businesses, not charities.

"He specifically gave an example where it was necessary to evict an elderly woman from her home after her husband passed away and she could not meet her obligations."
  Yep, it sucks evicting anyone. However, because I am a businessman and this is my livelihood, I'd make the same call. My first priority is to my business. Evictions are a challenge all landlords face eventually. In the trust scenario, the beneficiaries duties and penalties are clearly outlined from the onset. As an investor, my responsibility is to ensure the mortgage is serviced and the investment is protected. This particular gal had 2 months in reserves to make payments while she got it together, she also had the opportunity to sell the home outright when she got into trouble. But I know you know this. How many landlords would allow 2 months arrearages without eviction? You would? I call bulls**t.
   You're rapidly losing stature in my eyes, John. Delete this post as I know you will.
Regards,
Dave

[$Cash$]

Dave,
First I have never let anyone stay in the property, because as we all know they are not going to pay.  Second I make sure they have money enough to put a roof over their head and money to eat on when I do the deal with them.

John $Cash$ Locke

[David A. Hurlbrink]

The elderly lady was a tenant in a property she couldn't otherwise qualify for without us. She was not a foreclosure bailout as you suggested, but I know that you already knew that. Point made, end of story, have a nice life.

[David A. Hurlbrink]

 You're remarks are intentionally deceptive, and reek with the obvious intention of character assasination. I know for a fact you know our system since you once hosted a teleconferencing call for us during the NC AG fiasco. I fail to see the root cause of your rancor. Doesn't matter. I'll agree to disagree agreeably with you in exchange for you stopping the slam on ethics. Fair enough?
Dave Hurlbrink

[$Cash$]

Dave,

You are failing to see why I post as I do.  When you or Gary slam Subject To deals then you are going to get a reply from me and others who practice this creative investing technique.

You and Gary have a tendency to make remarks about peoples character when it does not go your way, such as Gary's latest post calling me NoCash, when you attack someone then be prepared for the ram.

In other words a taste of your own medicine will apply, I quoted straight from the Article about what was said, you say out of context, I say well contact the writer and have him retract his article for making false statements.  So you guy's brought that article up by knocking Subject To deals and my reply was those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Of course you could just stick to advising posters from you creative investing expierence, without saying other methods are illegal, so when you teamed up with Gary what he says will reflect on you.

However, I do understand your training as it is posted on the front of a web site you frequent, "(no sneaking around like subject to's).

Hope you get the message from this post and I stick to helping folks who need it without knocking anyone's method of investing.  Then I will do the same.

John $Cash$ Locke

[David A. Hurlbrink]

John,
 I'm glad we're getting to the bottom of this. I've never slammed Sub 2 deals, to the best of my knowledge and certainly don't recall ever making any negative remarks about anyone's character. I'd like to see an example of where this might have happened, since that's not the intent. I do understand that sometimes the true message is lost through an impersonal email, as I'd suspect is the case in this instance.
  I'd be glad to take a taste of my own medicine if indeed I truly offended someone somehow. Turnabout indeed is fair play. For the record, you brought the article up, not I.
  Getting back to sub2's being illegal, I think you might be referring to posts about the Texas legislation and executory contracts. For some reason, you're misinterpreting my well meaning intentions to assist others. We're all on the same team with the same objectives. Most other investor's I've met are some of the greatest folks around; I do take it personally when someone denigrates our industry by unethical deals as I know you do. In no way are these remarks directed at you or your methods. If you took it personally, I again apologize and look forward to working together to self-police our industry.
Regards,
Dave

[$Cash$]

Dave,

"to the best of my knowledge and certainly don't recall ever making any negative remarks about anyone's character" - do you mean the post I deleted for you calling me a liar?  However, it is forgotten on my part.

Had not Subject To investing been slammed, not by me, then this article would have never seen the light of day, so whoever did the slamming really brought the article up.

As I said "I will do the same", just a little advice keep a tight leash on the radical one, he hurts your cause more than helps it.  Calling me NoCash, when he signs his name da Wiz, who would name themselves after a bodily function?

John $Cash$ Locke

[David A. Hurlbrink]

John,
  You ask the impossible since I can control no one other than myself. I recall you starting the character assasination through the plaintiff attorney post, but consider it water under the bridge. My bad that I escalated the situation. Please, for the future, know that I hold myself completely accountable for anything I personally say or do.  Let's put the foolishness behind us and focus on what we do best.
Sound like a fair arrangement?
Regards,
Dave

[$Cash$]

Dave,

I will do the same.

John $Cash$ Locke

[mtnwizard]

You deleted my first post so I'll try again.  I agree to the truce as well.  However, John, the bodily function contains the letter "h", and you did make personal slurs.  I quote:  "have you no shame about what you do to the ederly or anyone else you deal with as a matter of fact."

Have a peaceful and stressless day sunning yourself in the Las Vegas smog.  I'll be there next month and will have to look you up.

Da Wiz

[$Cash$]

Gary,

I am only going by what I read in an article and if you personally follow the plan outlined in the writers comments and statements made, then what he said was part of your plan, not my plan, but your method of investing.

If this statement was made "stay unassociated with the end results, and caring costs money", which means to me, evict the old lady and do not look back, because it is the end result and if you cared it would cost you money.

Maybe you have another expaination of what this means, to me it means shame on you or anyone else for doing this.

John $Cash$ Locke

[mtnwizard]

John,

As a lifetime rehabilitation counselor, I could never kick out an old lady, too soft-hearted.  You know that I don't handle foreclosures, and that I share future profits with my tenant and occasionally with the seller.  In fact, I have been criticized on this very forum for sharing.  I am as outraged as anyone when people take advantage of others and it is not my way of doing business.  Dave is apparently knowledgeable about the case you mentioned.  I am not.

Da Wiz

[$Cash$]

Gary,

Now we agree, I too am to soft hearted, when I have walked in a property to see one box of cereal on the table and kids around looking like they haven't had a meal in weeks, the next step I take is to the grocery store, to hell with the house or if I do purchase it I overpay to the point the family can go on with their lives with some dignity.

So you can see why someone saying "caring costs money" would get the hair on the back of my neck standing up.

Not that tuff on folks and it has paid back 10 fold,

John $Cash$ Locke